LAKES, LAW or. The courts of England have rarely been called upon to expound the rules of the common law upon this topic, and syste matic writers upon law in that country have not essayed the task of stating them. In 1878, however, the House of Lords was forced to con sider the subject in two cases which went to that tribunal from Ireland and Scotland respectively. The Irish ease involved the right of fishery in Lough Neagh, an hiland lake covering nearly a hundred thousand acres. It was held that the Crown has not, of common right, title to the soil underneath such a lake, nor to the rights of fish ery therein. It appears to have been assumed by all the law lords who delivered opinions in the case that when a lake is wholly surrounded by the land of a single owner, the entire lake is in cluded in his estate. They left undecided, how ever, the question whether, in the ease of several riparian owners unon such a lake, each was en titled to the soil vsquam ad Plum aqua'. The Scotch case brought out the fact that the law of Scotland gave just that right to the several riparian owners upon Scotch lakes. and this right was recognized by the House of Lords, although it was decided (also in accordance with Scotch law) that the rights of boating, fishing. and fowling were held by the various riparian owners in common.
In the United States the legal principles ap plicable to inland lakes have received frequent and exhaustive consideration from our courts. With 'respect to the Great Lakes, such as On tario, Erie, and Michigan, the decisions of the courts have been uniformly based upon the theory that they are public waters. The land beneath them is owned by the State in trust for the public purposes of navigation and fishing. a trust which it cannot abdicate in favor of indi viduals or corporations. Indeed, for certain pur poses, these lakes have been deemed high seas (q.v.).
The rules laid down by our State courts rela tive to other lakes are far from uniform. They
are fairly divisible into three In a few States, having only small hikes, which are not within the common-law definition of navigable waters, the courts have declared that these bodies of water are subject to the rules governing non navigable stroams. The soil is private property, as are the rights of fishing, fowling, and heating upon the waters. In Massachusetts and Maine the law upon this subject has been determined largely by early colonial ordinances, which retained the ownership of lakes and ponds con taining more than ten acres in the State. Ac cordingly the common-law rules governing public waters apply to them. The soil beneath them, the use of the water, and the rights of fishing, fowling, and boating thereon are subject to State ownership and control. The third class of rules were first enunciated by the courts of N CNN' York, but have been adopted with some modifications by most of the States. According to these rules, lakes wholly within the territory of a single State are divided into two classes, those which are not navigable in fact, and those which are. The first class are subject to private ownership, and in case of several riparian owners, each owns to the middle of the lake; that is, the boun dary lines of his adjoining tract extend from the shore or meander line on lines converging to a point in the centre of the lake. Lakes of the second class follow the same rule so far as the lake bed is concerned, but the State is entitled to control all rights of navigation, fishing. and fowl ing thereon. This power of control is in the nature of a trust for all its citizens. In sonic States the soil, as well as the control of the surface, of lakes navigable in fact, belongs to the State. Such, too, is the rule applied in New York and Vermont to Lake Champlain. Consult Gould, Treatise on the haw of Waters, Includ ing Riparian Rights (Chicago, 1900).