The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-06
WHO OWNS OHIO RIVER?
ATTORNEY GENERALS PETITION TO
KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS.
The Southern State Does Not Now
ton of Indiana ON the River.

lnuldHd, III every case preseHlcu W IL, mas
held that the State of Indiana has con-
current Jurisdiction with the State of Ken
lucky on the Ohio river for the purposes
of serving all criminal and civil processes.
1t is matter of very grave concern If
this right should now be denied to the
State, and 1t is for the preservation of this
right that Attorney General Taylor has
prepared a brief in the case OF Romoze
j. Meyler against Charles l.. Wedding and
Louis j. Altering which he intends to
submit to the Court of Appeals Of Ken
lucky.
This is a case arising from Judgment
rendered originally by the Superior Court
of Vanderburg county in favor of Wedding
against Meyler. Summons was served on
Meyler by the sheriff of Vanderburgh
county while Meyler was on steamboat
on the Ohio river. Meyler answered that
he was in the State of Kentucky at the
time being on the Ohio river. and the
Ohio river being owned by the State of
Kentucky, and therefore, that the judy
ment rendered in Vanderburgh county
could not be sued on and enforced in any
court of Kentucky. as the judgment was
NHOly NOlu- Inc SOuAl VI APPCoiS VI &>SA-
lucky on Nov "a sustained this view, and
held that since the Ohio river, opposite the
Indiana shore was wholly owned by Ken
lucky, therefore no process of any Indiana
court served on the Ohio river would be
valid. nor could judgment be rendered
therein, and this applies as well to the fed
eral as to the State courts.
Attorney General Taylor requested At
torneys General Mennett, of Ohio, and
Akin, of Illinois, to join in petition to
the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, ask
ing it to review this case. Neither of these
officials acted upon the suggestion. 1t
being a question of very great importance,
and being the first case decided by the
State of Kentucky, holding this view, and
being against the uninterrupted line of de-
cisions rendered by the Supreme Court of
Indiana, Attorney General Taylor deter
mined to ask the Court of Appeals of Ken
lucky to review it's decision.
GREEN RIVER ISLAND CASE.
"In the Green river island case which
was a suit in the Supreme Court of the
United States. between the States of In
diana and Kentucky, over the title to
GTeen TlNCT lSlduQ dDONc GNdhofhiOs ehC
court decided that Green river BE-
longed to the State of Kentucky. and that
under the Virginia compact and the Con-
stitution of the State of Kentucky, adop-
ted pursuant to that contract, the State
of Kentucky extended TO the north bank
of the Ohio river, at low water mark And
this applied not only to the north bank Of
the river through Indiana, but also through
Ohio and Illinois.
THAT suit was determined practically
for the reason that for seventy years of
the history of Indiana, Ii was asserted that
the State had never claimed jurisdiction
over the river. or to the center thread or
United States largely decided the case
upon that proposition. Kentucky, on the
contrary, has always claimed title to low
water mark on the north side OF the river.
This, however, had no reference. as Is
claimed by the State of Indiana, to the en-
forcement OF criminal statutes and civil
process. On the contrary, the state OF
Indiana, for seventy years has had an I'M
interrupted judicial history In FAVOR OIL
concurrent jurisdiction on the Ohio. in
both civil and criminal matters; that this
did not touch the question OF the owner
ship that this jurisdiction was guaranteed
by the original Virginia compact adopted
Dec. Is, 1889, by the General Assembly of
Virginia, enacting a law granting TO Ken
lucky the right to become an independent
State, upon the acceptance by Kentucky OF
an instrument called the Virginia compact,
under which, If accepted, the state or Ken
lucky would become an independent state.
1t is upon the seventh condition or this
compact that the case turns. That con-
dition is as follows:
Seyenth-That the use and navigation
of the River Ohio, so far as the territory
OF the proposed State, or the territory
which shall remain within the limits of
this Commonwealth lies thereon, shall be
free and common to the citizens OF the
United States, and the respective jurisdic-
tions of this Commonwealth, and or the
proposed State, on the river as aforesaid,
shall be concurrent only with the states
which may possess the opposite shores OF
the said river.'-Ky. ST. 1894, Page A.
A SERIOUS PROBLEM.
"As. under the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States, the territorial
boundary of the State is low water mark
on the north bank of the river. it is ap-
parent that, If there were no jurisdiction
whatever in the State of Indiana and Its
various municipalities for the protection OF
it's shipping and wharves and the cities
and farming communities along the north
ern bank of the river, the problem OF police
protection of the citizens OF Indiana from
river thieves and other criminals along the
border would become q very serious one.
IF the right of pursuit and arrest upof
the water is taken away, the laws or Indl.
ana may be violated from households ano
other craft within stones throw OF the
shore, but beyond the reach of the author
tiles; and the police boats maintained II
the various cities can AFFORD absolutely nc
protection whatever from river thieves
except as to such as might be taken in the
act of preying upon their victims wher
they were actually upon the soil or lndi
ana. Valuable freight on Indiana wharve'
may be thrown into boats alongside, II
which the thieves may sit secure, them
selves and their booty alike, beyond tn'
reach of immediate pursuit.
1T Is not the desire OF any one In lndi
ana to dispute, at this time, the ownership
of Kentucky in the entire bed OF the rivel
up to the Indiana shore, nor to dispute OF
deny the right of Kentucky to enforce IT.
laws, civil and criminal, upon every par
of the river lying between the two states
The only thing that the people of Indiana
ask is that, for their own protection, thu
jurisdiction which they concede to Ken
lucky, and which they have for so man,
years exercised over the river, should b.
recognized and acquiesced in by that Com
monwealth.
For a great many years, certainly sine
1880, the State of Indiana has exercised
undisputed jurisdiction in the enforcement
of its laws. civil and criminal, upon tn
surface of the river; and, as an fnvariabl
rule, courts are inclined to recognize an'
uphold rights exercised during so long
period. This should especially be so whel
the right Of jurisdiction claimed is onl,
concurrent and can be exercised by lndi
ana without in any way disputIng, denying
or impairing the equal right or hentuck.
To maintain and enforce Its laws over tn
same territory.
''It is not disputed territory. It's politica
ownership is unQuestioned, and IL is no
susceptible of private ownership, so tina