Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-09-21
VOL. xIx.-..No. 80.

the sea, obtains In regard to navlSaDle ri7ers--s
there is for them all, as regards the authority OF
the State and rights of individuals, one law.
the right of property; the ownership is In the
State as an attribute Of. sovereignty. For; this
cause the State has power and authority to re-
move all impediments that obstruct the free use /
and navigation of such Rivers. And subjecttos
this restraining power every man has right to
use the water and the bed ofihe river for any
lawful purpose not inconsistent with the rights
of the riparian proprietor. No one can suppose
that bridge is an unlawful thing any more
than boat The bridge and the boat are equal.
ly legitimate modes of enjoying that usufruct
which all citizens are entitled to have in the
public waters of the State That use which is
made of River by means Of the bridge cannot
be enjoyed by any but the riparian proprietors,
because the banks of the River belong to them.
But to build bridge is to exercise common
right, provided 10 impediment is thrown in the
way of the public authority, and no trespass is
committed on private property.
In the exercise of a common right, no one can
be lawfully disturbed but no disturbance can
be more fagrant than to turn one out of the
possession of that which he has constructed for
himself. -
These considerations show that the owner
ship of the soil as an attribute of sovereignty is
no ground to argue from, when the rights OF ln-
dividuais in the public waters are concerned.
There is no analogy between the building on
private property and building in the sea. The
properly of private man IN hand is exclusive;
whoever builds on that land acts in direct oppo-
stion TO the owners rights. But he that builds
in an arm of the sea, or navigable river, does
nothing in derogation of the Soyereign's rights.
On the contrary he employs himself in strict
conformity with the will of the Sovereign whose
ownership of the public waters is for the COM
mon use of all-not merely for all citizens TO
use for boating and sailing and fishing, but for
all lawful purposes connected with the public
welfare. No notion of any such analogy would
exist if we reflect on the state of society where
property i'm land is unknown. Among the an
cent Germans, as among the Indian tribes, the
ownership of the land was in the Sovereign, un-,
der the sshie conditions which now apply to his
ownership of the sea. The land belonged to
the State collectively for the use of all but the
riglt which the man had TO his house was ex-
elusive. 1t was built on the public soil, but it
was his private property. The idea, therefore,.
of arguing from analogy. between property yes
ted in an individual for his private use, and pro-
perry belonging 10 the State, as an attribute Of
Sovereignty, prodeeds from confounding things
that are totally distincts5
The notion that the Bridge belongs to the.
State, as owner Of the soil, rests entirely on the
piles by which the bridge is supported, and
! those who maintain the right of the State must
affirm that wbaeverzis built IN nav gable river
becopl esi@med diate!y tie properly Of tile State
any snch assumption, and the position is shown
| to hn f,ly hu NH in Stn
First with regard to arms Of the sea. ports and
havcns. No man will deny that the harbor Of
Charleston belongs to the State, and no man is
so ignorant as not 10 know that every wharf in
the city is built in the harbor far below low-wa-
ter mark. There is no statute or ordinance Civ
ing the right to build wharyes. They were
built OF common right, in The exercise of the un-
doubted privilege which every riparian proprie-
tor enjoyed of improving his property, by using
the facilities afforded by the sen and its branch
es. The right may be regulated, but it does
not owe its existence TO the ordinances that reg
ulate it; nor does any one suppose that the
State or city can take away mans wharf be-
cause it is built in the harbor fit interferes
with The free navigation of the port, it may be
| abatcd as purpresture; but such foul idea al
that of taking away one mans wharf to give it
W IuOlIeI, ucheI IeCeIbeu lIc SIHCllOu W q
sound mind.
The wharves recently built into the harbor by
that enterprising citizen, o. B. billiard. attest
the continued exercise of the right, as well as
its beneficial influence on the public welfare.
But the existence of the right which every
citizen has to the usuiruct of public waters, in
cluding the right to build and erect structures
therein for lawful purposes, is equally shown in
the navigable rivers as in the ports and harbors.
Mills are frequent in the tide-water, erected by
great cncroachments on the rivers and to seize
mill built in the river, on the ground that it
was attached to the soil, would be secuted, even
if it were free from the odous feature of a tri-
butte TO private influence. Even fish traps are
protected, which on the river Banne, in Ireland,
were the signal for fierce contention in the
time of SIR JOHN DAVIS, TO whose report it
might be useful for some people to refer, for the
distinction between Royal FISH and other fish.
Thus We see that the attempt Of the Lesisls-
ture 10 interfere with the property of the city of
Augusta in this bridge, is as unconstitutional MS
any other act of spoliation would be, and in d.
rect violation of Magma Charts. The few peo-
pie that have been deceived in this respect, have
been misled by confounding The bridge with an
exclusive privilege or monopoly of toll. On
this distinction, which can be made apparent to
the meancst capacity, few words will suffice.
NO MEMBER.