The Penn's Grove record., 1885-01-31

v~.I.,r,. auI l,r,rHt Of guarding lie
t...,,.u . t..rta. aaexvd to tic re-
r..ti.. -ru,.. va. thereby guaranteed.
Il. I-pjan ... wl. passed ~subjectiug
u,r,,4. ,.,.a- command Of ships aud
o.a,. vessels aai ra.ts, %anchoring on
HshnE grounds, To a penalty, unless
thew wer, removed immediately upon
rconest of the otci,r OF occupier Of such
fishery. the penalty to he recovered by
the 0Urer or oCcupier.
Acts have been passed almost anEu-
ally for the last hundred years, provid-
ing fer the taxing of fisheries. At first
the designation IN the act WAS ''accus-
toned fisheries. the property Of pri-
waite persons, and afterwards the word
FISHERIES was used. Under these acts
shore fisheries III the tide waters of tie
Delaware. have been taxed. This very
Fauncc fishery We are told by a wit
ness has paid tax for over sixty years.
Shore fisheries on the Delaware have
been conveyed an devised as real estate,
and been the subject Of partition in our
courts from avery early period. Some
times they passed with the shore, at
other times theg were detached, hut
whether united or Ecvered from tie
shore. they were regarded and treated
as real property.
The eyi fence shows this to havel cen
the case from the early part of the 18Th
century.
Having very hastily noticed the cur
rent Of legislation on the subject of
fisheries in The Delaware, ard called at
tcutiou as briefly rs possible, to the
common understanding not oaly of the
owners but the public and courts,
granting partition CT sale of such prop
crty upon which the idea of local Gus
tom or local common law seems to have
been dawn. | will inquire if local CONF
mon law in New Jersey in regards to
rights of riparian owners on tide waters,
differing from the common law of En-
gland. has been recognized and Affirm
ed by the courts in this State.
The celebrated ease Of Cough VS.. Bel
decided that there was such a thing as
local common law i'll New Jersey. It
is true the controversy there was not in
reference to fisheries, but in reference
to the right to dock out end improve
10y riparian owner in front OF his lands
between high and low water. The
common law of England gave The land
to the State below high water, but the
court held that u local commo Law
authorized tie riparian owner to i'm
prove in trout Of his lands below high
water, and he could hold them after
the improvement, if made before the
State, or her gran ees, asserted her
rights.
Iplhe djscu sion Of Counsel, AMI in
the opinions OF the judges in that case
it was taken for granted, that "a local
custom or local common law existed
in respect to the rights of several fish
cry OF the River Delaware, which was
used by some OF the Idges as an evil
dence that there We're changes in this
state in some respect Of the common
law, as to rights Of riparian owners
lii order to make this subject plain
'r it viii be well 10 quote some extracts
from the opinions of the judges in the
case O; Gr"gt IS. Bel.
Chief Justice Green presided in the
Supreme Count when that case was
argued, and read an elaborate ami
prepared opinion. lie was one of the
abicst jmis;s this State or the country
has produced, and coming from him
The extracts l quote have great sfgni'-
icauCe. lie says: Notwithstanding
the acknowledged tjtlc of the State in
her sovereign capacity to the soil of
narigable rivers below high water
mark, there las undoubtedly existed
from Il Yerj early period, rights Of tie
riparian proptictors which have been
recognized by the legislature, neon
si>tent which the IDEA Of that exclusive
property in the State, sanctioned blythe
rule of the common law" Then tie
Chief Justice mentions several acts Of
The Legislature to which have alluded
which recognize the right of property in
shore fisheries on the Delaware river,
and he then adds: such repeated and
u%nequiyocal legislative recognition of a
right fun isles proof of is eXi5tapce
which cannot be dj5regarded." Chief
Justice Green quotes Mr.. Griffith Ia
very able lawyer of the last century,
residing at burlington, familiar with
titles in West jersey as saying; "This
species Of property referring to fisher
jos from the earliest time has been
the subject of exclusive enjoyment and
alienation like any other The Chief
Justice then further adds: Their
claims, it Is clear, is totally hrtconcil-
able With the rules Of the ancient com
mon law, touching property in the soil
on shores Of uayigable rivers, and if
the claim rested only On the principle
rot the common law of England, it can
not he sustained The right OF the
riparian lroprietols to an exclusive
right Of fishery i'll jhe tide waters, in
front of their lands, must rest. it IS ap-
pretended, on en- tom or local u.age
variant from the ts<a1on law. There
IS then | c nsgirc inquest 'onably a
local common law affecting the title of
riparian propr;ctors upon tide waters