Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/380

 354 OCTOBER TERM 1907. Oplnon of the Court. 0 U.S. able future demand upon which the part. ies are not wholly aFeed, but the essential facts are not denied. The defendant sets up that the statute, i applicable to it, s contrary to the Constitution of the United States, that it impairs the objUrga- tion of contracts, takes property without due proee of law, nterferes with commerce between New Jersey and New York denies the privileges of 'citizens of New Jersey to .citizens of other States, and denies to them the equal protection of the laws. An niunction was ssued by the Chancellor, 70 N. $. Eq. 525, the decree was aimed by the Court of Errors and Appeals, 70 N.J. Eq. 695, and the case then was brought hare. The courts below assumed or decided and we shall assume that the defendant represents the rghts of a rparian proprie- tor, and on the other hand, that it represents no special char- tered powers that ive it eater rghts than those. On these assumptioas the Court of Errors and Appeals pointed out tha a rparan proprietor has no rght to dvert waters for more than a reasonable cbstance from the body of the stream or for other than the well-known ordry usesj and that for any purpose anywhere he s narrowly ]hnted n amount. It went on to hfer that hs only rght n'the body of the stream s to have the flow continue, and that there s a residuum of public ownership in the State. It reinforced the StateJs rhts by the State's title to'he bed of the stream where flowed by the tide, and concluded from the foregoing and other consdera tions that, as aalnst .the rghts of rparan owners merely as such, the State was warranted n prohbitn the acquisition of the title to water on a larer scale. Ve  not say that the coasiderations that we hav stated do not warrant the conclusion reached; and we sheJl not at- tempt to revise the opinion of the local court upon the local law, f fo the purpose of decsion we accept the arment of the plalnt n error that it s open to revision when consti- tutional rghts 'are set up. Neither shall we consider whether such a statute as the one before us mght not he upheld, even if the lower rparan proprietors collectively were the absolute

�