Opinion ID: 102428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right of the United States to Maintain the Suit.

Text: Oregon contends that the State has never adopted the rule of Hardin v. Jordan, supra , and that in any case the rule has never been applied by this Court and, further, is not applicable to lakes the size of Malheur and Harney. See Stewart v. Turney, 237 N.Y. 117, 123; 142 N.E. 437; Granger v. Canandaigua, 257 N.Y. 126, 130; 177 N.E. 394; Richardson v. Sims, 118 Miss. 728; 80 So. 4; Boardman v. Scott, 102 Ga. 404, 406-419; 30 S.E. 982. But if applied, and the upland proprietors whose grants are bounded by the meander line are held to take to the center of the lakes, then it is insisted that the United States, which must prevail upon the strength of its own title rather than the weakness of that of the State, cannot maintain the present suit to quiet title with respect to any part of the beds of the lakes thus shown to belong to the upland proprietors. A bill to quiet title may not be defeated by showing that the plaintiff's interest, otherwise sufficient to support the bill, is subject to possibly superior rights in third persons not parties to the suit. Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 368, 369; Lane v. Watts, 234 U.S. 525, 541; 235 U.S. 17, 23; see also Gridley v. Wynant, 23 How. 500, 503; Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli Mining & Land Co., 194 U.S. 220, 223, 234. It is enough that the interest asserted by the plaintiff in possession of land is superior to that of those who are parties defendant. Before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away. Its possession and claim of title have ever since continued. The Executive Order setting aside the area in question as a bird reservation was an assertion of title and possession. Following the Order, as the Master found, the United States, through representatives of the Department of Agriculture, particularly a resident protector or warden, has taken active control of all the lands within the meander line. In the exercise of that control it has excluded hunters, erected posts marking the limits of the reservation, posted notices advising all persons of the existence of the reservation and warning them to refrain from hunting on it. This possession of the United States, under color and claim of title, is not shown to have been disputed or interfered with. As it is sufficient to preclude any action at law in the nature of ejectment, it is an adequate basis for relief in equity to remove the cloud created by the assertion of any inferior title of the State. Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 325; Allen v. Hanks, 136 U.S. 300, 311; see Sharon v. Tucker, 144 U.S. 533, 543-548; Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co., 241 U.S. 551, 555. There is no course of legal procedure by which a title to land can be adjudicated as good against all the world. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether the rule of Hardin v. Jordan, supra , applies to grants of upland fronting on Lake Malheur and Harney Lake, or what interests, if any, have been acquired in the disputed area by any of the upland owners, other than Oregon. The United States is entitled to relief so far as it is able to show that Oregon is without any right or title on the basis of which it would be entitled to disturb the possession of the United States. III. Oregon's Claim of Title to the Lake Beds in Consequence of Grants of Uplands by the United States. This claim is based upon the assumption, which for present purposes we also make, that the rule of Hardin v. Jordan, supra , does not obtain in Oregon, and that accordingly the ownership of upland proprietors does not extend within the meander line boundary, and also upon the statute of Oregon effective February 25, 1921, c. 280, Laws of 1921. This legislation declares that lakes within the State which have been meandered by United States surveys are navigable public waters of the State, and that the title to the bed and land thereunder, including the shore or space between ordinary high and low water marks not previously granted by the State is hereby declared to be in the State of Oregon, and the State of Oregon hereby asserts and declares its sovereignty over the same and its ownership thereof. The contention is that, upon grant of the uplands by the United States, whether to the State or others, title to the adjacent lake beds vested in the State by operation of the statute. It is insisted that after statehood local law controls the disposition of the title to lands retained by the United States underlying non-navigable waters within the State, and that the effect, upon the title to such lands, of the conveyances of the adjacent upland by the United States is to be determined by reference to state laws. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed upon language in the opinion in Hardin v. Jordan, supra, 381-384, which, however, refers in part to conveyances of uplands bounded on navigable waters (tide water), and upon the decisions of certain state courts applying the rule contended for to lands underlying non-navigable waters. See Fuller v. Shed, 161 Ill. 462, 494; 44 N.E. 286; Hammond v. Shepard, 186 Ill. 235, 241; 57 N.E. 867; Wilton v. Van-Hessen, 249 Ill. 182; 94 N.E. 134; Iowa v. Jones, 143 Iowa 398, 402; 122 N.W. 241; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 192; 53 N.W. 1139; McBride v. Whitaker, 65 Neb. 137, 154; 90 N.W. 966; Ne-pee-Nauk Club v. Wilson, 96 Wis. 290, 295; 71 N.W. 661; compare Whitney v. Detroit Lumber Co., 78 Wis. 240, 246; 47 N.W. 425. It is true, as was specifically pointed out in Oklahoma v. Texas, supra, 594, 595, that the disposition of such lands is a matter of the intention of the grantor, the United States, and if its intention be not otherwise shown it will be taken to have assented that its conveyance should be construed and given effect in this particular according to the law of the state in which the land lies. This was the effect of the decisions in Hardin v. Jordan, supra ; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406; and Kean v. Calumet Canal Co., 190 U.S. 452, in which conveyances bounded upon the waters of a non-navigable lake were, when construed in accordance with local law, held impliedly to convey to the middle of the lake. The rule that title to lands underlying navigable waters presumptively passes to the State upon admission to the Union has already been noted. Massachusetts v. New York, supra, 89; see Scott v. Lattig, supra, 242, 243. But in no case has this Court held that a state could deprive the United States of its title to land under non-navigable waters without its consent, or that a grant of uplands to private individuals, which does not in terms or by implication include the adjacent land under water, nevertheless operates to pass it to the State. Whether, on any theory, such a result could be upheld was a question expressly reserved in Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U.S. 508, 519; Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U.S. 510, 515; Marshall Dental Co. v. Iowa, 226 U.S. 460, 462. In none of these cases were the parties necessary for the determination of that question before the Court. The laws of the United States alone control the disposition of title to its lands. The States are powerless to place any limitation or restriction on that control. Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 516, 517; Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 99; see Brewer-Elliott Oil Co. v. United States, supra, 88; United States v. Utah, supra, 75. The construction of grants by the United States is a federal not a state question, Packer v. Bird, 137 U.S. 661, 669, 670; French-Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U.S. 47, 54; Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District, 232 U.S. 186, 196, and involves the consideration of state questions only insofar as it may be determined as a matter of federal law that the United States has impliedly adopted and assented to a state rule of construction as applicable to its conveyances. See Oklahoma v. Texas, supra, 594, 595; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 404. In construing a conveyance by the United States of land within a State, the settled and reasonable rule of construction of the State affords an obvious guide in determining what impliedly passes to the grantee as an incident to land expressly granted. But no such question is presented here, for there is no basis for implying any intention to convey title to the State. The State, in making its present contention, does not claim as a grantee designated or named in any grant of the United States. It points to no rule ever recognized or declared by the courts of the State that a grant to individual upland proprietors impliedly grants to the State the adjacent land under water. [3] The only support for its claim is the statute of 1921, adopted subsequent to every grant of the United States involved in the present case. The case is not one of the reasonable construction of grants of the United States, but the attempted forfeiture to the State by legislative fiat of lands which, so far as they have not passed to the individual upland proprietors, remain the property of the United States. Such action by the State can no more affect the title of the United States than can the similar legislative pronouncements that streams within a State are navigable which this Court has found to be non-navigable. See Oklahoma v. Texas, supra ; United States v. Utah, supra, 75; United States v. Holt State Bank, supra, 55, 56. The Master correctly found that there were no facts or circumstances to establish, as matter of fact, any intent on the part of the United States to abandon or surrender its claim to any part of the area within the meander line. We accordingly accept the findings and determination of the Special Master, to which the Government does not except, as to the title and interest of the State of Oregon in Mud Lake and in Division B of the Narrows, and conclude that the State has no right, title or interest in any part of the remainder of the area, which is superior to that of the United States. The United States is entitled to a decree in conformity with this opinion, and also with the decree recommended by the Special Master so far as it is not inconsistent with this opinion, quieting its title and possession, as against the State of Oregon, to such remaining area within the meander line boundary of the five divisions. The parties, or either of them, if so advised, may, within thirty days, submit the form of decree to carry this opinion into effect, failing which the Court will prepare and enter the decree. It is so ordered.