﻿HYDROLOGY 
  OF 
  NEW 
  YORK 
  53J 
  

  

  Again, 
  later 
  on, 
  in 
  1823, 
  the 
  State 
  acquired 
  by 
  purchase 
  all 
  the 
  

   rights 
  in 
  the 
  Hudson 
  and 
  Mohawk 
  rivers 
  which 
  these 
  two 
  com- 
  

   panies 
  were 
  possessed 
  of, 
  which 
  purchase 
  has 
  been 
  taken 
  as 
  recon- 
  

   firming 
  the 
  State's 
  absolute 
  title 
  to 
  the 
  beds 
  and 
  waters 
  of 
  these 
  

   two 
  streams. 
  

  

  The 
  following 
  are 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  more 
  important 
  cases 
  bearing 
  

   upon 
  the 
  ownership 
  of 
  the 
  Hudson 
  river 
  which 
  have 
  been 
  passed 
  

   upon 
  by 
  the 
  courts 
  of 
  last 
  resort 
  in 
  this 
  State. 
  

  

  The 
  first 
  important 
  case 
  is 
  that 
  of 
  the 
  Canal 
  Appraisers 
  vs. 
  The 
  

   People 
  on 
  the 
  relation 
  of 
  George 
  Tibbetts, 
  determined 
  in 
  the 
  

   Court 
  of 
  Errors 
  in 
  1836. 
  In 
  this 
  case 
  it 
  was 
  held 
  that 
  if 
  in 
  the 
  

   improvement 
  of 
  a 
  navigable 
  river 
  the 
  waters 
  of 
  a 
  tributary 
  stream 
  

   are 
  so 
  much 
  raised 
  as 
  to 
  destroy 
  a 
  valuable 
  mill 
  site 
  situate 
  

   thereon, 
  and 
  if 
  the 
  tributary 
  stream 
  on 
  which 
  said, 
  mill 
  site 
  is 
  

   situate 
  be 
  generally 
  navigable, 
  although 
  not 
  so 
  at 
  the 
  particular 
  

   locality 
  of 
  the 
  mill 
  site, 
  the 
  owner 
  is 
  not 
  entitled 
  to 
  damages 
  

   within 
  the 
  provisions 
  of 
  the 
  canal 
  laws, 
  directing 
  compensation 
  to 
  

   be 
  made 
  for 
  private 
  property 
  taken 
  for 
  public 
  use. 
  

  

  In 
  this 
  case 
  Tibbetts 
  claimed 
  damage 
  for 
  the 
  destruction 
  of 
  a 
  

   waterpower 
  situate 
  in 
  the 
  middle 
  sprout 
  of 
  the 
  Mohawk 
  river 
  by 
  

   the 
  erection 
  of 
  the 
  Troy 
  dam. 
  The 
  case 
  was 
  first 
  tried 
  in 
  the 
  

   Supreme 
  Court 
  in 
  1826, 
  when 
  the 
  relator 
  obtained 
  a 
  rule 
  that 
  the 
  

   Canal 
  Appraisers 
  should 
  show 
  cause 
  why 
  a 
  mandamus 
  should 
  not 
  

   be 
  issued 
  commanding 
  them 
  to 
  assess 
  the 
  damage. 
  The 
  Canal 
  

   Appraisers 
  had 
  refused 
  to 
  allow 
  damages, 
  assigning 
  as 
  a 
  reason 
  

   that 
  Tibbetts 
  had 
  no 
  legal 
  claim 
  to 
  the 
  land 
  under 
  the 
  water 
  of 
  

   the 
  middle 
  sprout 
  because 
  it 
  belonged 
  to 
  the 
  people 
  of 
  the 
  State. 
  

   After 
  various 
  proceedings, 
  which 
  need 
  not 
  be 
  specially 
  referred 
  

   to 
  here, 
  the 
  Court 
  of 
  Errors 
  held 
  as 
  in 
  the 
  foregoing, 
  thereby 
  con- 
  

   firming 
  the 
  position 
  of 
  the 
  Canal 
  Appraisers. 
  1 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  The 
  People 
  vs. 
  Tibbetts, 
  decided 
  by 
  the 
  Court 
  of 
  

   Appeals 
  in 
  1859, 
  it 
  was 
  held 
  that 
  the 
  State 
  in 
  its 
  sovereign 
  char- 
  

   acter 
  owns 
  the 
  beds 
  of 
  navigable 
  streams 
  to 
  high-water 
  mark, 
  

   and 
  that 
  the 
  right 
  of 
  a 
  riparian 
  owner 
  is 
  subservient 
  to 
  the 
  power 
  

   in 
  the 
  State 
  to 
  abridge 
  or 
  destroy 
  it 
  at 
  pleasure, 
  although 
  the 
  

   riparian 
  owner 
  may 
  undoubtedly 
  use 
  the 
  water 
  passing 
  his 
  land 
  

   so 
  long 
  as 
  he 
  does 
  not 
  impede 
  the 
  navigation, 
  in 
  the 
  absence 
  of 
  

  

  iThe 
  Canal 
  Appraisers 
  vs. 
  The 
  People, 
  17 
  Wendell, 
  576. 
  

  

  