Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/502

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

476 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. 209 U. 8. lating .to passengers as to ve?els paa?ing over the waters of the Hudson Riv.er, and by necessary implication reeerve? to New Jersey every other political or governmental jurisdiction and dominion, and all prerogative, proprietary, and sovereign rights in and over the waters of the Hudson River and the lands lying thereunder and with the boundary fixed by the agreement. Peopl? v. Central R. R. Co. o! N.J., 42 N.Y. 283. The action of the State of New Jersey in respect to its lauds lying under its n?vigable waters within its boundaries, through various statutes passed by the legisle.*?ure, coustitute? a con- tinued exercise and assertion of its ownership'. (See "An act for preserving oysters in the Province of New Jersey," passed in the fifth year of George I, Nevill's Laws, p. 86; "An act for the preservation o� oysters," passed January 26, 1789; "An act for the preservation of clams and oysters," passed June 9, 1820, p. 758; act of April 14, 1846, Rev. of 1847, p. 492, Rev. of 1877, p. 138; the wharf act, passed March 18, 1851,. Rev. of 1877, p. 1240; the vah'ous riparian statutes, Gem Stat. p. 2785.) Lands under water formerly belonging to the State and granted by the State to property owners are subject to tax- ation. Morris Canal Co. v. Jer.? C/?y, 6 Vroom, 178; State v. Pratt, 4 Zab. 108; State v. Sippl, 1 Dutcher, 530; and see also 14 Vroom, 121; 17 Vroom, 341. MR. JUSTICE Ho?s delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error prosecuted to review a judgment sus- taining taxes levied by Jersey City upon lands of the plaintiff in error lying between the middle of New Yo?4; Bay and its low water line on the New Jersey shore. It is a?'gued that this land, although it belonged to New Jersey until conveyed, is not within its jurisdiction, and cannot be taxed undcr the authority of that State. The Supreme Court upheld the tax, 41 Vroom, 81, and its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals for the reasons given by the Supreme Court. 43 Vroom, 311.