Opinion ID: 112480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Special Master's Reports and the Exceptions

Text: The Special Master's two reports concern, as he listed them, (1) a small unnamed island upstream, or west, of Pennyworth Island, (2) an unnamed island east of Pennyworth, referred to as Tidegate, (3) the Barnwell Islands, that is, Rabbit Island, Hog Island, Long Island, and Barnwell No. 3, (4) Southeastern Denwill, (5) Jones Island, (6) Horseshoe Shoal and Oyster Bed Island, (7) the mouth of the river, and (8) the lateral seaward boundary. The Special Master himself, [f]or the convenience of the Court and counsel, described the major legal issues covered by his First Report in this way: 1. Did the Treaty of 1787, in reserving all islands in the Savannah River to Georgia, intend to include not only the then existing islands, but also all islands thereafter emerging by natural processes on the South Carolina side of the river? If the answer is in the affirmative, how can the 1922 decision of this Court be reconciled? 2. Is the Special Master correct in determining that the right-angle principle should be invoked by the demarcator in drawing the boundary line around islands on the South Carolina side of the `thread' of the Savannah River, because of the `special circumstances' existing by reason of the preclusive effect of the 1922 Supreme Court decision as it interpreted the Treaty of 1787? 3. Has the Special Master correctly ruled that Rabbit Island accreted to the State of South Carolina, and whether the `Island Rule' is applicable? 4. Has the Special Master correctly decided that Hog Island and Long Island have been acquired by the State of South Carolina under the doctrine of prescription and acquiescence? The Special Master notes that, even though Hog Island (in existence in 1787) was acquired by South Carolina under the doctrine of prescription and acquiescence, there remained at that time a creek separating Hog Island from the mainland and it was not until the spoilage had been dumped by avulsive processes that Hog Island became a part of the South Carolina mainland. 5. Has the Special Master correctly ruled that the area known as Southeastern Denwill, if it presently encroaches on the southern side of the mid-point of the Savannah River as it existed in 1787, now belongs to Georgia? 6. Has the Special Master correctly ruled that Jones Island, at all pertinent times, was in the State of South Carolina? 7. Did the Special Master err in diverting from the doctrine of medium filum acquae as established by the 1922 decision of this Court, in proceeding eastwardly after leaving the southern tip of Turtle Island? 1 Rep. 112-113. Georgia's exceptions to both reports are directed to the Special Master's recommendations concerning (a) the Barnwell Islands (other than Rabbit Island, as to which Georgia does not now except), (b) Oyster Bed Island and the mouth of the Savannah River, (c) the use of a right-angle line to connect the boundary in stream around an island in the Savannah River with the boundary in the mainstream of the river, see Ga. Exceptions ii, (d) the Master's ruling that islands of natural formation emerging after the Treaty of Beaufort are not in Georgia if they emerged on the South Carolina side of the river, ibid., and (e) the Master's use of the navigation channel, rather than the geographic middle of the mouth of the Savannah River, as the starting point for his delineation of the lateral seaward boundary. Georgia's exceptions, so far as the First Report is concerned, thus are directed only to the first, second, fourth, and seventh of the issues listed by the Master. Some of the claims Georgia pressed before the Master, e. g., the one relating to Jones Island, are not presented for review here; we treat those claims as now abandoned. South Carolina takes exception to the Master's recommendations concerning (a) the lateral seaward boundary, (b) two narrow strips of land well downstream from the City of Savannah, (c) the downstream area known as Horseshoe Shoal, and (d) the line which resulted from the placement of Horseshoe Shoal in Georgia. See S. C. Exceptions 2. So far as the First Report is concerned, these exceptions thus are directed only to the first, fifth, and seventh of the issues listed by the Master. Before we consider these several exceptions specifically, we note that Georgia's reaction to the First Report is straightforward. It asserts that under the 1787 Treaty all islands in the Savannah River are in Georgia; that, despite this treaty provision, the Master would place certain islands in South Carolina; and that his First Report reflects his fundamental dissatisfaction with the boundary line as established by the framers of the Treaty of Beaufort and as construed by this Court in 1922. Ga. Exceptions 7. This has led the Master to diverge, at virtually every opportunity, from the boundary which has been established since 1787, in order to place his recommended boundary in or near the mainstream or the navigation channel of the river. Id., at 8. South Carolina, of course, disavows this characterization of the Special Master's decision. We turn to the exceptions in an order we select.