Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1901-09-05
From the DEMooRAr, Sept. IA, 1852 ]

Cunning for reed and rail birds on
Woodbury. creek has been prohibited by
the owners. 1t may be that they can stop
cunning on the meadows, but we think
not.
Mr.. EDITOR Noticing the above para
graph in the local column of your paper of
the 7th inst, and also hearing great deal
of argument about it, have taken some
pains to examine the laws relating to lands
lying under water in navigable streams
in the State of New Jersey, and for the
benefit of your readers will quote from the
report of the Riparian Commissioners of the
State of New Jersey for the year 1875.
The spirit and provisions of the Riparian
Act of April 5, 1875, ARE in accordance with
the now settled policy of the State respect
ing lands under her tide waters, and are
we'll adapted to promote it.
The State title to these lands is becoming
more widely and thoroughly understood,
and her wise and just policy of protecting
such title, in trust, for the common good of
her citizens, is becoming increasingly per-
ceived and approved. That there is no
room for doubt as to the validity of her
ownership is completely established by re-
peated and authoritative decisions, to which
it may not be inappropriate in this con-
nection briefly to refer.
The first is that of Arnold VS.. Mundy,
decided by the Supreme Court of this State
in 1921, and reported in l Halstead, l.
The second is that of Martin vs.. Wardell,
decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States in 1912, and reported in IS
Peters, 367. The third is that of Cough VS..
Bell, decided by the Supreme Court Of this
State in 1850, and reported in 2 Zabriskie
AL. The fourth is that of Russell VS.
Associates of the Jersey Company, decided
by the Supreme Court of the United States
in 1853 and reported in Is Howard, 1926
The fifth is that of State VS.. Mayor and
Common Council of Jersey City, decided
by the Supreme Court of this State in 1856,
and reported in butcher, 525. The sixth
is that of Stewart VS.. Fitch & Boynton, de-
cided by the Supreme Court of this State
in 1868, and reported in 2 Vroom, IS. The
seventh is that of Stevens VS.. the Paterson
and Newark Railroad Company, decided by
the Court of the last resort of this State in
1870, and reported in Vroom, $50. The
principles of this train of adjudication are
plainly no longer to be questioned. In the
seventh and last of them the opinion of the
Court by Chief Justice Beasley is review
Of the former ones and an exhaustive pres
entation of the legal history and doctrines
by which the title of the State is secured
and defined. AS thus determined it is,
shortly stated, thus: By the ancient COM
mon law the title of the owners of land
bounded by the sea or navigable rivers
where the tide GIBBS and flows, extends to
ordinary high water mark only.
The title to the shore between ordinary
high and low water marks, as well as the
title to the soil under water, belongs prima
facie to the sovereign. The title, which by
the common law of England, was vested in
the King, upon the Revolution became
vested in the people of the State. While
the State cannot lawfully make a grant of
all the waters of the State to the utter de-
struction of the rights of navigation and
fishery, it may by grant limit the common
rights, and may appropriate to individual
enjoyment lands covered by water to the
exclusion of the public common rights of
navigation and fishery. 1t may grant the
land in all navigable tidal water within it's
territorial limits, to ordinary high water
mark, without the consent of the owner of
land adjoining high water line. BY the
local custom of this State, the owner of
such land can reclaim the land between
high and low water marks, but such privi-
lege is mere license which the Legislature
may revoke at any time before execution.
So you will see Mr.. Editor, under the
law tide waters are no longer the Kings
highway, but the highway Of liberty loving
freemen. By reference to the above local
it would seem that few individuals own
ing lands near the mouth Of Woodbury.
creek, whose title can only go to high water
mark, have attempted to prohibit Jersey
men from fowling and fishing, and would
appropriate to themselves that which be-
longs to the citizens Of New Jersey in COM
mon. J. M. H.