The views taken in the various states as to the ownership of land under lakes and ponds are not in accord.

The title to the bed of what are known as the "Great Lakes," has always been regarded as vested in the state in which the particular portion of the lake happens to lie,33 and a like view has been adopted as regards Lake Champlain.34 It has, furthermore, been variously asserted or decided that in the case of natural lakes the land under water is owned by the state,35 that it is owned by the riparian proprietors,36 that in the case of a navigable lake it belongs to the state,37 and to run involves a question of difficulty. In cases where the length of the lake is very considerable in proportion to its breadth, especially if the shore is regular in contour, the courts have evinced a disposition to apply the same rule as is applied in connection with the division of the bed of unnavigable streams between the riparian proprietors, the longer diameter of the lake or pond being regarded as in effect the thread of a stream.43b It has on the other hand been said that the "thread" of a lake consists of lines drawn from the central point of the various arms in such a way that points in those lines are equidistant from the nearest points in the shore line on either side, and that the lines of the various owners should be drawn perpendicular to the shore line, extending to the nearest point in the thread.43c Occasionally it is said that the lines of each proprietor should be extended from the termini of his lines on the shore to the centre of the lakc,43d this giving to each proprietor of land on the lake a more or less triangular piece in the bed of the lake. This does not, however, solve the difficulty of determining the centre of the lake. In one state it is said that the purchaser of a government subdivision is to be regarded as having acquired so much of the bed as is included in the subdivision.43e It appears to be generally conceded that no rule can be laid down which the riparian owners if the lake is not navigable;38 that it belongs to the state if the lake is meandered by the government survey,'whether or not it is navigable,39 and occasionally it has been asserted or intimated that the submerged land belongs to the state in the case of a large lake, and to private owners in the case of a small one, without, however, naming any criterion by which to ascertain the applicability of either term of description.40

33. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 36 L. Ed. 1018; People v. Sirk, 162 111. 138, 53 Am St. Rep. 277, 45 N. E. 830; Lincoln v. Davis, 53 Mich. 375, 51 Am. St. Rep. 116, 19 S. W. 103; People v. Silberwood, 110 Mich. 103, 32 L. R. A. 694, 67 N. W. 1087; Miller v. Mendenhall, 43 Minn. 95, 8 L. R. A. 89, 19 Am. St. Rep. 219, 44 N. W. 1141; SIoan v. Biemiller, 34 Ohio St. 492; State V. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 94 Ohio 61, L. R. A. 1917A, 1007, 113 X. E. 677; Slauson v. Goodrch Transp. Co., 94 Wis. 642, 69 N. W. 990.

34. Champlain & St. L. R. Co. v. Valentine, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 484; Austin v. Rutland R. Co., 45 Vt. 215; McBurney v. Young, 67 Vt. 574, 29 L. R. A. 531, 32 Atl. 492.

35. Trustees of Schools v. Schroll, 120 111. 509, 60 Am. Rep.

575, 12 N. E. 243 (semble); Nee-Pee-Pauk Club v. Wilson, 96 Wis.

290, 71 N. W. 661 (semble).

That the state owns the land under the lake and the waters therein merely in trust to allow the people to make use thereof, see Rossmiller v. State, 114 Wis. 169. 58 L. R. A. 93, 91 Am. St. Rep. 910, 89 N. W. 839; State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60. L. R. A. 1916C, 139, 148 N. W. 617.

36. Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. v. South Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co., 102 Mich. 227, 25 L. R. A. 815, 47 Am. St. Rep. 516, 60 N. W. 681; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 35 L. Ed. 428; See Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369. That in the case of an "inland fresh water lake or pond" there is private ownership to the center, see Providence Forge Fishing & Hunting Club v. Miller Mfg, Co., 117 Va. 129, 83 S. E. 1047.

37. Barbaro v. Boyle, 119 Ark. 377, 178 S. W. 378; Wilton v. Van Hessen, 249 111. 182, 94 N. E. 134; (if meandered or navigable.) State v. Thomas, 173 Iowa, 408, 155 N. W. 859; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 Am. St. Rep. 541, 53 N. W. 1139; Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley, 225 Pa. 605, 74 Atl. 648; State v. West Tennesee Land

Co., 127 Tenn. 575, 158 S. W. 746. Gifford v. Horton, 54 Wash. 595, 103 Pac. 988; Mendota Club v. Anderson, 101 Wis. 479, 78 N. W. 185.

That a lake is navigable for this purpose if it is available for general use by pleasure boats, although not utilized for commercial purposes, see Barbaro v. Boyle. 119 Ark. 377, 178 S. W. 378; Flisrand v. Madson, 35 S. Dak. 457, 152 N. W. 796; Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181, 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 Am. St. Rep. 541, 53 N. W. 1139; State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60, L. R. A. 1916C, 139, 148 N. W. 617.

38. Rhodes v. Cissell, 82 Ark. 367, 101 S. W. 758; Floss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119, 110 Pac. 294 (statute): Ridgway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 248; Webber v. Pere Marquette Boom Co., 62 Mich. 626, 30 N. W. 469 (semble); Shell v. Mattison, 81 Minn. 38, 83 N. W. 491; Hodges v. Williams, 95 N. C. 335; Brignall v. Hannah, 34 N. D. 174, 157 N. W. 1042; Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 8 L. R. A. 578, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828, 24 N. E. 686; Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley, 225 Pa. 605, 74 Atl. 648; Olson v. Huntamer, 6 S. D. 364, 61 N. W. 479; Bernot v. Morrison. 81 Wash. 538, Ann. Cas. 1916D. 290, 143 Pac. 104.

In Minehan v. Murphy, 149 Wis. 14, 134 N. W. 1130, it was decided that where, by the construction of a dam. an unnavig-ble stream became a navigable lake, and so remained for the statutory limitation period, the title to the bed became vested in the state. The dissenting opinion questions, with much force, whether the riparian owners rights should thus be divested without his assent, he having had no means of asserting his title as against the state during the limitation period.

39. Fuller v. Shedd, 161 111. 462, 33 L. R. A. 146, 52 Am. St. Rep. 380, 44 N. E. 286; Schult-; v. Warren, 218 111. 108, 13, L. R. A. (N. S.) 745, 75 N. E. 783; Wright v. Council Bluffs, 130 Iowa, 374, 114 Am. St. Rep. 412, 104 N. W. 492; State v. Jones, 143 Iowa, 398, 122 N. W. 241; Cawlfield v. Smyth, 69 Ore. 41. 138 Pac. 227; Boorman v. Sun-nuchs, 42 Wis. 233; Diedrich v. Northwestern Union R. Co., 42 Wis. 248, 24 Am. Rep. 399.

40. Clute v. Fisher, 6." Mich. 48, 31 N. W. 614; Gouverneur v. National Ice Co., 134 N. Y. 355,

In Massachusetts and Maine, by virtue of the ordinances of 1641 and 1647 and subsequent legislation, the title to the land under what are known as "groat ponds," containing more than ten acres of land, is in the state in trust for the public, and all persons have the right to make use of them for all lawful purposes, the riparian owners thereon having no special rights therein superior to others.41

As in the case of rivers,42 so in the case of lakes, the meander lines run by the government surveyors are not ordinarily to be regarded as boundary lines.43

In the case of land under a lake used for purposes of commerce and navigation, the title to the land beneath which is in the state, it is held by the state, it has been said, in trust for the people, and the state cannot relinquish its ownership of such land unless this is done in such a way and to such an extent as not substantially to interfere with the public right.43a

When the bed of a lake or pond belongs, not to the state, but to individuals, the question of how the lines of division between the various owners should be

18 L. R. A. 695, 30 Am. St. Rep. 699, 31 N. E. 865.

41. Gould, Waters, Sec. 84; Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160; Wattup-pa Reservoir Co. v. Fall River, 147 Mass. 548, 1 L. R. A. 466, 18 N. E. 465, 154 Mass. 305, 13 L. R. A. 255, 28 N. E. 257; Brastow v. Rockport Ice Co., 77 Me. 100; Conant v. Jordan, 107 Me. 227, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 434, 77 Atl. 938. In New Hampshire the distinction between large and small ponds, asserted by virtue of these ordinances, has been adopted without any legislation. Concord Mfg Co. v. Robertson, 66 N. H. 1, 18 L. R. A. 679, 25 Atl. 718; Dolbeer v. Suncook Water Works Co., 72 N. H. 562, 58 Atl. 504.

42. Ante Sec. 301. note 28.

43. Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 35 L. Ed. 42S; Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119. HO Pac. 294; In re Tucker, 126 Minn. 214, 148 N W. 60; Brignall v. Hannah, 34 N. D. 174, 157 N. W. 1042; Olson v. Huntamer, 6 S. D. 364, 61 N. W. 479; Brown v. Dunn, 135 Wis. 374, 115 N. W. 1097.

43a. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 337, 453, 36 L. Ed 1018; State v. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 94 Ohio 61, L. R. A. 1917A, 1007, 113 N. E. 677. See State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60, L. R. A. 1916C, 139, 148 N. W. 617; Ross-miller v. State, 114 Wis. 169, 58 L. R. A 93, 91 Am. St. Rep. 910, 89 N. W. 839.

43b. Calkins v. Hart, 219 N. Y. 145, 113 N. E. 785. aff'g 64 .Misc. 149, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1049; Lem-beck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 8 L. R. A. 578, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828, 24 N. E. 686. See Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 402, 35 L. Ed. 428, Scheifert v. Briegel, 90 Minn. 125, 63 L. R. A. 296, 101 Am. St. Rep. 399, 96 N. W. 44.

43c. Editorial note, 17 Harv. Law Rev. 410.

43d. Rhodes v. Cissel, 82 Ark.

367, 101 S. W. 758; Lamprey v. State. 52 Minn. 181, 18 L. R. A. 670, 38 Am. St. Rep. 541, 53 N W. 1139; Scheifert v. Briegel, 90 .Minn. 125, 63 L. R. A. 296, 101 Am. St. Rep. 399, 96 N. W. 44. See Ridgway v. Ludlow, 58 Ind. 248.

43e. Stoner v. Rice, 121 Ind.

51. 22 N. E. 968; Contra, Grand will be sufficient and equitable in every case,43f and occasionally the courts indicate that the lines of division should be ascertained by an equitable proceeding in the nature of a partition.43g

Rapids Ice & C. Co. v. Ice Co ,

102 Mich. 227, 25 L. R. A. 815, 47

Am. St. Rep. 516, 60 N. W. 681.