Opinion ID: 112480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Islands Emerging After the Treaty of Beaufort

Text: The unnamed island west of Pennyworth, the island east of Pennyworth called Tidegate, and Oyster Bed Island all emerged after the Treaty of Beaufort was signed in 1787. [5] Georgia claims these islands and argues that, by the terms of the Treaty, the boundary in the vicinity of each island runs between that island and the South Carolina shore. The first Article of the Treaty, see n. 1, supra, provides: The most northern branch or stream of the river Savannah from the sea or mouth of such stream to the fork or confluence of the rivers now called Tugoloo and Keowee, . . . reserving all the islands in the said rivers Savannah and Tugoloo to Georgia . . . shall forever hereafter form the separation limit and boundary between the States of South Carolina and Georgia. This Court considered this provision in 1922 in Georgia v. South Carolina, 257 U. S. 516. Both States agreed that the presence of an island on the South Carolina side of the river altered the boundary so as to bring the island within the jurisdiction of Georgia. In its decision on the merits, the Court resolved two contested issues relevant here. First it held, ruling in Georgia's favor, that where, in any of the boundary rivers here involved, there are no islands the location of the boundary line between the two States is the thread of the river  the middle line of the stream  regardless of the channel of navigation . . . . Id., at 521. It rejected South Carolina's alternative position, which would have placed the boundary at the low water mark on the Georgia side of the river: The express reservation of the islands to Georgia and the placing of the boundary line in the most northerly branch of the Savannah and then of the Tugaloo river up to the `northern boundary of South Carolina,' makes it clear that where there are islands in the river the line must be between them and the South Carolina shore, for otherwise the Georgia islands would be within the State of South Carolina. Id., at 520-521. Because the northern branch or stream clause by definition would bring the boundary north of the low water mark on the Georgia side, the Court thought it unlikely that the parties intended the low water mark to be the benchmark where no islands were present. The more logical reading of the Treaty was that each State would take to the middle of the stream. Id., at 521. Second, the Court held that, where there was an island in the river, the boundary would be midway between the island and the South Carolina shore. This conclusion followed from the determination that the northern branch or stream of the river, where an island was present in the northern half of the river, would be the branch or stream that ran between the island and the northern shore, and from the Court's first holding that the midpoint of the relevant body of water was the appropriate place to draw the boundary. Two principles established by the 1922 decision are pertinent here. First, although it is by no means self-evident on the face of the Treaty that the northern branch or stream refers to the stream that each island  however small and however close to the northern shore  creates between itself and the shore to the north of it, that was the construction of the Treaty agreed upon by the parties in 1922 and adopted by this Court. Apparently it was thought that a contrary rule, whereby the northern branch or stream referred only to a branch or stream that made a major departure from the main body of the river, would create an unmanageable boundary, because then the Treaty's additional reservation of the islands to Georgia would create pockets of Georgia territory within South Carolina wherever islands existed on the South Carolina side of the northern branch or stream defined in this larger sense. Second, under the principle that each island in the river created a new northern branch or stream, each island was not only reserved to Georgia under the reservation clause of Article I, but also formed a point of reference, by which the boundary would be drawn. The Court, in its 1922 decision, did not expressly determine the treatment to be given islands that emerged after the Treaty of Beaufort was signed, so that decision is not controlling on this issue. The Special Master found, and South Carolina agrees, that the better reading of the Treaty in light of the 1922 decision is that the clause reserving all islands. . . to Georgia refers only to islands in existence in 1787 and that the most northern branch or stream, as applied to a branch or stream going to the north of an island, similarly refers only to islands in existence when the Treaty was signed. The Treaty's establishment of the boundary forever hereafter would thus be unaffected by after-emerging islands. Georgia argues that the provision of Article I reserving all islands . . . to Georgia includes such after-emerging islands and that, accordingly, the reference in the Treaty to the most northern branch or stream of the river Savannah means the stream flowing to the north of any island currently in the river. We think South Carolina and the Special Master have the better argument. Georgia's solution, whereby each emerging island not only is newly reserv[ed] . . . to Georgia but also creates a new northern branch or stream by which the boundary between the States must be drawn, would create a regime of continually shifting jurisdiction. Even the smallest emerging island, no matter how near the South Carolina shore, would cause the entire boundary between the States to shift northward, depriving South Carolina not only of the land that constitutes the island but also any riverbed between the island and the center line that previously formed the boundary. We doubt that the parties, in drafting the Treaty, meant to create a boundary that shifted so radically each time a new island emerged in the river. To the contrary, Article I of the Treaty purports to fix the boundary forever hereafter, a goal that would be frustrated were the boundary to jump northward each time a new island appeared on the South Carolina side of the river. A construction of the Treaty that avoids sudden changes in the boundary would be more consistent with this language, and also comports with the principles of simplicity and finality that animated the Court's reading of the Treaty in 1922, and with the respect for settled expectations that generally attends the drawing of interstate boundaries. Cf. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503, 522-525 (1893). We recognize, of course, that the normal rules relating to accretion and erosion may cause the boundary line between the States to shift over time, so that the line will not necessarily be fixed as of any particular point. But it is one thing to say that the parties meant that gradual shifts in the path of the river would shift the boundary gradually, to the extent of the accretion; this rule is consistent with settled expectations and with the parties' interest in maintaining their riparian rights. See Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359 (1892). It is quite another thing to infer that the parties meant that each new island, however formed, would alter the boundary line to a degree that could be dramatically out of proportion to the physical change brought about by the formation of the island itself. Finally, Georgia points to the statement in the 1922 decree that all islands formed by nature in the Chattooga River, like the islands in the Savannah and the Tugaloo, were reserved by the Treaty to Georgia. Georgia v. South Carolina, 259 U. S., at 572. This reference, Georgia contends, necessarily implies that the reservation clause in the Treaty includes after-emerging islands, since man-made islands did not exist in the river in 1787. There is no indication, however, that the Court knew of this fact in 1922. No issue of after-emerging islands was even before the Court, and the decree simply described the river as it then was. In light of the foregoing, we agree with the Special Master that islands that emerged after 1787 do not affect the boundary line between the two States. Georgia's exception with respect to that issue is overruled.