The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-03-22
A CANAL CONUNDRUM.


THE OLD WABASH & ERIE MUDDLE.
A CORRESPONDENT WHO CLAIMS THAT THE
WABASH & ERIE CANAL BED AND BANKS
BELONG TO THE PARTIES WHO OWN THE
ADJOINING LANDs.
Stearns Fisher, of Wabash, who is the
best possible authority on the ques-
ton he discusses, writes to the Wa
bash Plsindealer letter, from which it
will be seen that the purchasers of the
Wabash & Erie canal have not struck as
big bonanza IS they thought. Mr..
Fishers idea of the law in the case is very
accurate. he says: learn that there Is
some little excitement among the property
holders through which the Wabash & Erie
canal runs in regard to the rights of the
recent purchasers of said canal, and having
the canal during ali its early
history, and believing that / under
stand everything in relation to 1t as
well, or better, than any one now living,
L feel constrained to state what / deem
the right, not only of the purchaser, but
of the owners of lands through which the
canal passes, as well. The purchaser of
the canal at the recent sale has all the
rights that the state had when it was con-
veyed to the bondholders, and no more.
The state could not convey rights she did
all the ground occupied by the canal and
necessary for its maintenance and repair,
and its successful operation can not for q
moment be doubted; there is no question
about this. The question is
TO WHOM DOES THE BED AND BANKS BELONG
when the canal shall be abandoned as pub
lie highway? Do they belong to the original
owners OF the land, or to the recent pur-
chaser? To determine this, we must in
quire into the origin andIextent of the right
of the state. The land through which the
canal passes may be divided into four
classes-snd first because it is the lsrgest)
we mention the "csnal lands"
which were ceded by the general
government to the state to aid in
the construction of the canal. These lands
were sold by the state TO individuals in
nearly every instance before the canal
was constructed, or even permanently
located, and the bed and banks of the
canal were included in the purchase, no
deduction having ever been made on ac-
count of the ground TO be occupied by the
canal. The purchaser bought and paid
for the ground the canal occu-
| pies, but the law under which these
lands were sold reserved the
right Of way for the canal.
The second class consisted of those lands
that had been sold by congress prior to
1
| OF this class between Fort Wayne and Lo-
| ganepoIt; there are some east OF the former
and west of the latter. The third class
consists OF such lands as were owned by
the Miami nation of Indians at the tins
| the canal was constructed. These consist
of ten sections at the
| "FoRKs OF THE WABASH"
in Huntington county, and adjoining the.
town of Huntington, and a strip five miles
wide extending from the Wabash to Eel
river, and adjoining the original plat of
the town of Peru on the east. At the
treaty of 1926, the Miami Indians ceded to
the state strip of land six chains wide
where the canal should pass through
these reserves. At the last treaty
with the Miami's the TN sec
served to John b. Richardville, and one
section near Peru to Francis Godfrey.
Subsequently our legislature by an act
conveyed to Richardville and Godfrey all
OF this six chain strip In these respective
reservations not occupied by the canal,
except ten chains in length at each dam,
and at each lock which were to be re-
tanned; that or subsequent legislature
provided for surveying and selling this
chain strip through the residue of
these reserves, which was done. The
fourth consists of the numerous
individual Indian reserves granted by the
treaty of 1926. / can not name them all,
nor is it necessary. 1t is sufficient to say
that the ground upon which Huntington,
Lagro, part of Wabash, nearly all of
Peru and Logansport are located is of this
class: land that never belonged to this
state or to the United States; land that be-
longed to the Miami tribe of Indians and
was reserved to individual Indians when
tie residue of these lands were sold to the
government. In regard to the second and
i fourth class of lands
/ THE STATE NEVER HAD ANY RIGHT
but such as she took by her own power.
She appropriated the lands "without as
much as saying by your leave, sir;" true
she made provisions for paying any dam
ages she might do the land, the same as
provision is made for paying damages by
locating and opening road through ones
when il is vacated and abandoned as a
highway, it becomes again the prop
erty of the original owner or his
assignee. The same is true in regard TO
the first and third class. The state has
l sold the land to different persons. and re-
ceived pay and issued patents, and she can
not sell il again, nor can her assignees.
She or her sUJgnees may use 1t for pur-
poses OF vtation forever, but for no
other purpose. Her rights consistin what
LAWYERS call an easement, and nothing
more: and, when the canal ceases TO be
navigable highway, all rights of the states
in these lands end. refer to that por-
tion of the canal east of Laiay cite
especially, being more familiar with IL,
but presume the same rule will apply to
all parts of it. would say, in conclusion,
TO sny and all who own land through
which the canal passes, If any pretended
owner comes along and proposes to sell
you what you have already bought and
4 have deed for, "don't be Dit," you can
get no better title than you now have;
this is my opinion. Don't psy out any
money until you consult good lawyer.