Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

128

of title. It was also held, that the town took the title for its present and future inhabitants, the court referring to [April, commons, training fields and burial grounds as being held in a like manner, and that the use was not for building in a restricted sense, but, in the language of the court, "for all those structures and purposes for which such material in the progress of time and the arts may be made useful." The court also said: "it may be proper to add that the grant of the right to the stone carries with it, as a necessary incident, the right to enter and work the quarry and to do all that is necessary and usual for the full enjoyment of the right, such as hewing the stone and preparing it for use." "The only limitation, as to the persons by whom the right is to be enjoyed, is that the stones shall be for the use of the inhabitants of Worcester. and prepared by the inhabitants for their own use, or by "Therefore whether it is quarried persons who, like the defendant, make it their business to procure it and get it ready for the use of others, it is equally within the terms of the grant, so long as the stone is applied to the use of the inhabitants of the town." And this was true both of public and private use.

Thus the rights of the city and its inhabitants, seem to have been fully established by the highest court in the state, and it only remains to be seen how the experiment has worked as a practical question. The owners of the fee have not found the condition satisfactory, and have in various ways tried to obstruct the use of the quarry, putting up gates, posting notices, threatening suits and otherwise, while the city, by votes of the city council has asserted its rights and those of its inhabitants, and has agreed to stand behind all persons that are in any way molested in exercising such rights; but I do not find anything that changes the condition as left by the case of Green v. Putnam, though some of the dealers running quarries there have of late taken leases from the owners of the fee.

The stone is fully described in Perry and Emerson's

Geology of Worcester, Mass., and in general terms is a granite which on exposure shows stains like iron rust. It is thought to be of great depth. It has cracks and cross cracks, which break it into irregular blocks. It is hard to cut, is located northwesterly of the Worcester Insane Hospital, on the top of a hill about three hundred feet above the Union railroad station and away from the city. The stone itself is not as attractive to all people as some of the many other stones with which it has to compete. Some of the large builders have quarries of their own, located on the line of a railroad, and with their superior capital and enterprise are able to compete with a free quarry. Most or all quarries have what is termed refuse, consisting of stones with spots which are unfit for buildings or work in sight, but which are adapted for foundations and uses where such defects are not objectionable. These stones are already quarried, are in the way, and the owners are glad to dispose of them. These and perhaps other causes have resulted in a diminished use of this stone.

But it still remains true, that stones cannot be sold in Worcester at a price that the inhabitants are unwilling to pay, rather than to resort to their own free, municipal quarries. As examples of buildings erected from this stone, the principal building of the Worcester Polytechnic. Institute, the Worcester Normal School and the Worcester Insane Hospital may be mentioned, though the latter came from their own grounds, which adjoin the quarry.

There is no novelty in the doctrine that there may be a separate ownership of land, and the mines thereon. (Washburn, Real Property, Vol. I., page 17.) In English law gold and silver mines belonged to the crown, as being necessary for coinage, and might be reserved in grants of land. In Kent's Commentaries, Vol. 3, p. 378, it is said that "it is a settled and fundamental rule with us that all valid and individual title to land within the United States, is derived from the grants from our own local governments or from

that of the United States, or from the crown, or royal chartered governments established here prior to the Revolution."

In the charter of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, the land is described with the additional clause, "and also all mines and minerals, as well royal mines of gold and silver as other mines and minerals, precious stones and quarries."

At first the laws of the United States excepted minerals in the provisions for taking up land, but the occupants made miners' rules among themselves, which were recognized by the courts, on the fictitious ground of presuming a license from the government; so the public lost all rights therein. This in 1866 was regulated by statute. Had the doctrine of royal mines been applied to quarries of stone, coal, oil and other like substances, as the Proprietors of Worcester applied it to stone, a very different history might have been written. As it is, those proprietors made an early and successful solution of a problem which of late has much vexed the people of the civilized world.

In Re

THE WILL OF THOMAS HORE.

In justice to Mr. J. HENRY LEA of South Freeport, Me., and London, England, who translated and edited the Will as it appeared in our Proceedings of October, 1904, the Committee of Publication offer this statement.

The whole mass of manuscript and correspondence on the subject had been delivered to our late Vice-President, Senator HOAR, in his lifetime, and he spoke upon the subject at the Meeting in October, 1903. After Mr. Hoar's death the material was handed to the committee by his private secretary. It is the rule to send proofs of all papers to the authors or editors, but when the Proceedings for October last were about to go to press there were special reasons for including the Hore will in that number. Although Mr. Lea was in London and could not see the proof, the matter was so carefully prepared and type-written that it seemed safe to entrust its supervision to

the committee, and it was not sent to Mr. Lea. As might perhaps be expected, some errors crept in from a misapprehension of the abbreviations, which in Mr. Lea's eyes seemed very serious, and he has expressed his mortification and regret, in which the committee fully sympathize.

The committee was much impressed with the work of Mr. Lea, which showed great learning and much careful, diligent labor, and regret that it appeared in print without having had his revision.

« AnteriorContinuar »