rightfully she might retain for the public, it must be held that the question whether waters are or are not navigable is in the first instance a Federal question, the authoritative and final answer to which can only be given by the Supreme Court of the United States, interpreting and applying the Federal Constitution. The basis of determination is the constitutional equality of States. The particular application of this principle consists in allowing to the nonoriginal States no more and no less than the rights which the original States had inherited from the Crown of England when the Federal Government was formed. Those rights in turn are measured by the rule of the common law as adapted to this country. Thus the rule is to be read and applied as though it were a part of the Constitution itself, and necessarily there can be but one rule. To admit a multiplicity of rules would be to violate the principle of equality under pretense of observing it, and to permit the various States to define the rule for themselves would be in effect to make them the arbiters of their respective prerogatives under the Constitution, and submit the property rights of the United States to State determination.

2. By the law of Minnesota a conveyance of land bounded on a nonnavigable lake carries title to the submerged land. Where the upland is held by several owners. the limits of their holdings are determined by lines drawn from the points where their side lines intersect the shore or meander line to the center of the lake. (Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn., 181; Hanson v. Rice, 88 ib., 273; Skell v. Matteson, 81 ib., 38; Sherwin v. Bitzer, 97 ib., 252.)

Since conveyances by the United States are in this regard to be interpreted according to the law of the State (Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S., 371; Mitchell v. Smale, ib.. 406; Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S., 508; Kean v. Canal Co.. ib., 452), patents for lots bounded upon Mud Lake (were it a subsisting body of water) would doubtless convey title to the land beneath the water. It is well settled that with certain important exceptions a meander line is not a boundary, and that where lots are patented according to a plat which exhibits them as bordering on a pond or nonnavigable lake the water will be taken as the true boundary,

notwithstanding the field notes may show that a meander was run and adopted in determining the area of the lots. (See cases last cited.) These authorities, however, do not intimate that the Government is bereft of the right, enjoyed by every private owner, to limit its conveyances to the upland if it sees fit to do so. On the contrary, it will be found upon examination that they, and others which might be cited if necessary, expressly recognize that right and apply the State law merely as a convenient rule for interpreting patents in common with other conveyances. I know of no act of Congress which requires the Land Department either to abstain from extending the public surveys over lands covered by nonnavigable waters or to dispose of such lands without compensation as mere appurtenances to the surrounding uplands. From my study of the subject I conclude that the practice of excluding such lands from the surveys by meander lines has been based entirely on convenience and that the department long supposed that patents for the upland lots according to the plats resulting from such surveys would be consistent with the retention by the Government of the lands beyond the meanders, as its conduct in afterwards surveying and attempting to dispose of them in not a few instances suffices to prove. In Kean v. Canal Co., supra, at page 459, the court said:

"It would seem, to be sure, that the settled understanding of the Land Department has been that in cases like the present the meander line marked the limit of the grant."

In the dissenting opinion, which deals with the matter quite exhaustively, it is said (p. 494):

"Without presently developing this subject further, I append in the margin a reference to acts of Congress, rules of the Land Department governing surveys, and reports of the executive officers charged with the survey and disposition of the public domain, which beyond peradventure show that from the very beginning of the Government up to the decision in Hardin v. Jordan, the general practice was to treat the land under nonnavigable waters as the property of the United States, and to survey and sell the same as part of the public domain.

I am of opinion that the Government rests under an obligation to deal with the reclaimed area in such wise as to realize for the Indians at least the stipulated price per acre a conclusion which acquires added strength from the action of Congress in appropriating the Indians' money to carry out the original drainage survey.

You are advised, therefore, that the land should be surveyed and disposed of for the benefit of the Indians like any other lands included in the cession which have been reclaimed pursuant to the act of May 20, 1908, supra, and the drainage laws of the State. In this connection you are further advised that any patents that may issue for the shore lots should be by appropriate description confined expressly to the land above the meander line.

Respectfully,

Approved:

ERNEST KNAEBEL,

Assistant Attorney General.

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.

The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

PORTO RICO-LEGALITY OF BOND ISSUE.

The municipality of Ponce, P. R., may lawfully issue bonds for the purpose of paying an indebtedness to the insular government and for the purchase of land and construction of a pier, as the power to issue bonds of this general character has been granted to that municipality by Congress and the legislative assembly of Porto Rico.

It is essential to the validiy of said bonds that the provisions of the act of the legislative assembly of Porto Rico of January 31, 1901, authorizing and regulating the issuance of bonds by the cities of Porto Rico, be substantially complied with.

These bonds are made payable, principal and interest, in Porto Rico, and in case proper notice is given by the holder thereof the place of payment may be transferred to New York City. They are transferable in Porto Rico only.

The form of the bond must be approved by the executive council of Porto Rico, as provided by section 9 of the act of January 31, 1901.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 26, 1912.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, inclosing a copy of an original

and supplementary ordinance adopted by the municipality of Ponce, Porto Rico, and approved by the executive council and the governor of Porto Rico, authorizing a $390,000 bond issue for the purpose of paying off an indebtedness to the insular government of $35,200, and for the purchase of land and construction of a pier; and a copy of a franchise granted the municipality by the executive council of the right to build, maintain, and operate a pier; together with a copy of the bond proposed to be issued by the municipality under the authority aforesaid. Upon these papers you request my opinion as to the legality of this proposed issue of bonds, whether the bonds may be made payable both as to interest and principal and transferable in the United States as well as in Porto Rico, and as to the form of the bonds.

The Porto Rican organic act of April 12, 1900, c. 191 (31 Stat. 77), provides, by section 7, that citizens of Porto Rico and citizens of the United States residing therein "shall constitute a body politic under the name of The People of Porto Rico, with governmental powers as hereinafter conferred, and with power to sue and be sued as such." Section 27 provides, in part, "that all local legislative powers hereby granted shall be vested in a legislative assembly which shall consist of two houses." Section 32 provides, in part:

"SEC. 32. That the legislative authority herein provided shall extend to all matters of a legislative character not locally inapplicable, including power to create, consolidate, and reorganize the municipalities, so far as may be necessary, and to provide and repeal laws and ordinances therefor; and also the power to alter, amend, modify, and repeal any and all laws and ordinances of every character now in force in Porto Rico, or any municipality or district thereof, not inconsistent with the provisions hereof: Provided, however, That ali grants of franchises, rights, and privileges, or concessions of a public or quasi-public nature shall be made by the executive council, with the approval of the governor Section 38 provides:

66

*

*

SEC. 38. That no export duties shall be levied or collected on exports from Porto Rico; but taxes and assess

ments on property, and license fees for franchises, privileges, and concessions may be imposed for the purposes of the insular and municipal governments, respectively, as may be provided and defined by act of the legislative assembly; and where necessary to anticipate taxes and revenues, bonds and other obligations may be issued by Porto Rico or any municipal government therein as may be provided by law to provide for expenditures authorized by law, and to protect the public credit *: Provided, however, That no public indebtedness of Porto Rico or of any municipality thereof shall be authorized or allowed in excess of seven per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of its property."

* **

By an act of the legislative assembly of Porto Rico of January 31, 1901, to authorize and regulate the issuance of bonds by the cities of Porto Rico (laws of 1901, p. 150), it was provided by section 4 that the council of any city having a population of more than 10,000 by the census of 1899-1900 should have "the power to issue bonds, with coupons attached thereto, on the credit of the city to an amount not exceeding said seven per cent of the aggregate tax valuation of its property, for the purpose of constructing water works, sewers, public buildings, bridges, grading and opening streets, or other necessary public improvements, or for the purpose of funding and taking up and making payment of the floating indebtedness and liabilities of such city." Section 5 provides:

"SEC. 5. Such bonds must be in such form as the city council directs and be of the denominations of five hundred and one thousand dollars. The bonds and the coupons attached must be signed by the mayor and the secretary of the city council, and the date of the issue of each must be registered by the secretary. The bonds must be sold at not less than their par value and draw interest at a rate not to exceed six per cent per annum, the interest payable semiannually."

By section 7 it is provided that the treasurer of such city shall pay the interest on the bonds upon presentation