Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-08-22

I EtclOfy tlfetIl5 OF ARRIVING dL any COl
elusion as 10 which may or may no
occupy, sellor improve it. The Stat
looks to it IS a possible source Of in
come. The owner hopes to get SOM
money out of it. But he has no righ
to build wharfs, and the State has NJ
right to do anything whatever, with
out his consent or remuneration. 81
it lies idle. 1t is an estate in chance
| ry.
eve suppose this to be, not 8
learned, but practical statement o
the case. Law may be the perfection
of human reason; but it requires g
| supefhuman reason to comprehend
it; and there are few lawyers who
meet that requirement. 1t may be
that a fair decision of this litigation
would be what we have heard jurists
describe as all right enough, but not
| law but political economy IS some
what a tangible science; and we
would rather leave this matter to
pubIicists than jurists. No matter
what the precedents may be, the
State has certain valuable interests at
! stake. Like any other owner, it may
| sell them, hold them, or perhaps give
them away to advantage. But all it
does now is to lie like a dog in the
manger between low water mark and
the navigable channel, closing out
all possibility of enterprise and inn
prOVement.
"The true solution Of this difficulty
lies in one of two or three propO-
sitions. Let ii be conceded, as it must
be, that the navigable channel is q
public highway, over which the State
has control as supreme as the city Of
Newark has over the boundaries of
Broad street. That is essential to the
public good, as distinguished from
private interests. But that granted,
the State should do something deci-
sive. 1t is probably too late TO correct
the original fault. There is a never
ending vitality in bad legal prece-
dent; and an original blunder in legiS-
lation is a perpetuity. But the State
can either assert actual ownership,
partnership with the riparian owner,
or eminent domain. Let it do one
thing or the other; and the sooner the
State title is eXtinguished, the better
for all concerned.
"The shOre-Owner, having an I'M
questioned right to his water front,
and the power to make a valid deed,
will naturally sell to others or inn
prove ON his own account. In either
event he creates taxable property, de-
velops the wealth of the State, helps
his neighbors, stimulates commerce,
and becomes an active instead of a
passive being in the community. If a
railroad wants his river front it does
not hang on by the lips to a doubtful
charter, but takes it, just as it crosses
a mans farm, leaving the damages to
be assessed by commissioners. If he
has capital, he builds a wharf and
warehouse and calls shipping to the
shore. If he has none, he sells to
some one who wants place OF busi-
ness.
g 1t would be an easy matter to Ell
pher up how much money the State
of New Jersey has received from the
sale of riparian fronts. 1t would be
very difficult to say how much it has
lost bV leaving a shOal along its coast
to intercept commerce. The question
of State proprietorship is of minor
importance. A State can never be
rich as a landhOider. Generally
it is none the better off for moneys
got by selling to citizens the privilege
to be enterprising There is always
consideration upon the other side.
Our argument, it will be seen, is not
based at all upon what We conceive
law ought to be. 1t can have no pos
sible influence upon the courts, be-
cause they are in honor bound to res
pect the statute book. We have
spoken only for what we suppose to
be the final good policy ;the one which
will most enure the welfare Of the
State -