Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-14

IL down to its very cenger. ne Is lotu
of his earthly estate, be it ever SO
small; possessor of all the wealth
below the surface boundary lines. But what
about the air?
How much air above his real estate property
does man own? 1t has always been said-and
there has been none to deny it--that property
owners rights above the ground are as extern
sive as these below.
The well known expression, ''free as the air.
implies the theory that no man controls TINS
element. but like the waters of the earth, all
should enjoy and partake of it at will.
But this condition is changed, or is changing.
Recently residents adjacent to flying field
near baltimore Md complained to the authori-
ties that planes annoying them by nylng
back and forth over their property. hot
argument ensued. THE air is free" said those
who wished to use it. "The air above us Is our
air." said the property owners.
Immediately there arose the question OF VINO
owns the air and, If anybody owns it, how much
of it does he own?
Aviation has brought to the fore the ques-
ton of air ownership individuals have Claim
ed the "airyspace" above their property as their
own and the right to prohibit aviation cor
porations from using it. Litigation has RESUMED
to determine the Of private air
TWO notable cases of air trespass have
already been tried in the United States
The District Court OF the Oniteo OSaOeS AOA OiAc
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
handed down this decision in a case known
i'm aviation litigation as SHETLAND VS. Curtiss
Airuorts Corporation an action on the parueS
of the hrst part for an injunction because u
illegal trespass and the alleged maintenance OF
a nuisance by or more OF the parties OF the
second part. The court said, in part:
s.Accordingly it is our conclusion that the
v,Iaintiffs at this time are entitled to an in
junction restraining the defendants
"(a) From permitting dust from their oper-
ations TO ny or drift in substantial and annoy
ING quantities over the property OF the plain
tifs: -
.Cb, From permitting the dropping or dis
tributing of circulars from airplanes as they
pass over plaintiffs property or in proximity
thereto; and,
afc) From navigating over the property OF
pIaintiffs or any part thereof unless at aiu-
fudes of 500 feet or in excess thereof"
Tn another case in Massachusetts,, tried IN
tt,a Sunerior Court of that State-a suit TO
nrohibit an aviation corporation from nying
over land and buildings in such manner as 10
constitute trespass and nuisance-the court
MA there was trespass below 100 feet. that
from 100 feet to 500 feet it was undecided, ana
from 500 feet up there was no trespass.
In these two cases-the only ones OF DEFINITE
Importance in the United States with respect 10
fair rights nothing 1t VIII De noted mas peeh
said about the landing or takeon OF planes.
TIC courts have been very careful to confine
their decisions to the question OF what consul
tutes trespass in the matter Of flying over an
individuals property. They have, SO to speak,
ruled within the Commerce Departments reg
s,Iatior with respect to "safe attitudes OF
fiieht." which DEGREES that 500 feet shall be the
minimum. except where indispensable TO an
industrial flying operation" Flying over Cities
towns and settlements comes under a separate
regulation.
rT~HE Federal Government, by an act OF
Congress has declared complete SOW
ereignty of the air space over the lands ana
waters of the United States, including the Canal
zone y And it further declares that aircraft
of the armed forces of any foreign nation shall
Act be navigated in the United States. includ-
ing the Canal Zone. except in accordance with
an authorization granted by the Secretary OF
State"
This is in accordance with the practice OF all
nations, though some go step farther and