The Punta Gorda herald., 1919-07-03

" y
bathing, fishing and commerce, is
taken from me and vested in the
riparian owner.
Unless you are the owner of
water front property, your free
use of the banks and shores along
the tidewaters and streams of this
state for camping, fishing and
outing purposes, is taken from
you and vested in the waterfront
owner; nor can you tie up your
boat or net anywhere between
Ihighwater mark and the edge of
the channel, which covers a dis
tance of from a few feet to three
and four miles along some of our
waters. This would certainly be
an unusual hardship on our citi-
zens who fish or boat for pleasure
and on the hundreds of good citi-
zens of this state who make their
living by fishing.
Under the act as above, all such
beaches as Pablo, Atlantic, Or
mond and dozens of others along
our coast line, where hundreds of
our people go every year for
sport and pleasure during vaca-
ton periods, would be taken from
the whole people and vested in
the riparian owner. | do not be-
lieve that our people want to sur
render their rights and privileges
and become subject to an act that
makes it impossible for them to
get to the channel Of our streams
and tide waters without a flying
machine, except on pain of being
trespassers. The supreme court
of the United States, in Pollard s
Lessee V. Hagan, reported in 81
Howard 219, in effect held that
these waters and tide lands were
the property of the various states,
their principal use being for all
the citizens thereof, and that to
undertake to convey the same to
individual ownership would, in
many instances, embarrass the
state in the enforcement of its
police regulations.
There are many places along
the tide waters and streams of
our state where the distance from
high water mark to the edge Of
the channel runs into miles, the
intervening space being mud flats
or shallow bottoms that are not
valuable for boating, bathing and
fishing purposes, but, in many in
stances, such mud flats and shall
low bottoms are becoming very
valuable for subdivision, island
and filling-in purposes. Such
lands being the property of all the
people in common, should not be
given away for speculative pur-
poses, as the late act seeks to do,
but should be sold and the moneys
received therefor placed to the
credit of the permanent school
fund of the state where all the
people would be benefited there
by.
In my judgment, it would be
just as proper for the legislature
to pass an act giving to those per-
sons who happen to be adjacent
owners to the sixteenth section of
school land, everglades land or
other public lands belonging to
the state, the right to extend their
lines into such lands, as to give
waterfront owners exclusive priv
ilege to extend their lines from
high-water mark out to the edge
of the channel and thereby, in
many instances, donate to them
hundreds and thousands Of acres
of mud flats and shallow bottoms
that never could have been con-
templated in their purchase of the
uplands, and which, in the course
of time, if properly conserved,
could be made to yield millions of
dollars to the permanent school
fund of this state.
The law of this state amply pro-
tects every riparian owner in his
riparian ownership and all rights
accruing therefrom, our supreme
court having recently said that
such rights are property rights
that cannot be taken from any
citizen without due process of
law. No one could buy in front