| OCR Text |
Show LANDS UNDERLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS 129 owned by the Republic.135 Title to lands under navigable waters acquired by the United States elsewhere in the West remained in the Federal Government prior to admission of the States in which such lands were located. Most of the cases examined in connection with this sub topic relate to watercourses. However, the principles apply equally to lakes and tide- waters. Title Passes to State on Creation In United States v. Oregon, the Supreme Court reiterated a long-established principle of fundamental importance-that on admission of a State to the Union, title to lands underlying waters within its boundaries, navigable in fact at such time, passes from the Federal Government to the State as incident to the transfer thereto of local sovereignty.136 This accords with the constitu- tional principle of equality among the States whereby each new State becomes, as was each of the original States, the owner of the soil underlying the navigable waters within its borders.137 When a new State is admitted to the Union, it is so admitted with all the powers of sovereignty and jurisdiction that pertain to the original States, which powers may not be constitutionally diminished, impaired, or shorn away by any conditions, compacts, or stipulations embraced in the enabling act which would not be valid and effectual if they were the subject of Congressional legislation after establish- ment of statehood.138 Thus, becoming endowed with the same rights and powers in this regard as the original States,139 the new ones may use and dispose of the lands underlying navigable waters as they may respectively direct-subject always to the rights of the public in such waters, and to the paramount authority of Congress to control their navigation so far as may be necessary for the regulation of commerce among the States and with foreign nations.140 As the effect upon title to lands underlying bodies of water is the result of Federal action in admitting a State into the Union, the question whether the 1355 Stat. 797 (1845); 9 Stat. 108 (1845). 136 United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1, 14 (1935). 131Oklahoma, v. Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 583 (1922); United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 75 (1931). 138Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U. S. 559, 568, 570, 573 (1911). This case did not involve navigable waters. It related to a provision in the Enabling Act of 1906 prescribing the location of the State capital and forbidding its removal therefrom prior to 1913, whereas Oklahoma became a State in 1907. The Supreme Court held this provision to be not a valid limitation upon the power of the State to change the location of the capital after its admission. 139Scott v.Lattig, 227 U. S. 229, 242-243 (1913). 140See Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 381-382 (1891). See also Callahan v. Price, 26 Idaho 745, 754-755, 146 Pac. 732 (1915); State v. Brace, 76 N. Dak. 314, 317, 320- 321, 36 N. W. (2d) 330 (1949); Lynch v. Clements, 263 Pac. (2d) 153, 155 (Okla. 1953); State v. Rolio, 71 Utah 91, 97, 262 Pac. 987 (1927). 450-486 O - 72 - 11 |
