"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed, except for temporary purposes and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty with the French Republic of the 30th of April, 1803, ceding Louisiana."
(I have added the italics.) By the same rationale, the treaty with Mexico pursuant to which the land now constituting Nevada was acquired could be held to create a trust, because, again, it was never the original conception of the Constitution that the United States would have permanently large landholdings over which it exercised general sovereignty, even under the Property Clause.
“The Spanish granted Hagan some submerged land covered by tidal waters (aka a swamp) in what is now Alabama, but at the time was part of Georgia. Georgia recognized Hagan’s claim in 1795.
Alabama was carved out of land initially claimed by Georgia, but ceded to the Federal government in 1802. The deal between Georgia and the Federal government was that the Federal government would take the land in trust in order to sell off parcels of it to settlers, which would eventually become new States.
In 1836, the Federal government was selling off land in what was now Alabama, and sold the submerged land to Pollard.
Historically, when the US acquired new territory that wasn’t originally claimed by the original 13 States (like the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase), the general process was that all of the land was considered the property of the Federal government, and they would divvy it up and sell it off to private individuals.
Hagan sued, arguing that the Federal government had no right to sell the land.
Hagan argued that, based on Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee (41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367 (1842)), all submerged land that is in Alabama is owned by Alabama, not the Federal government.
In the case of Martin the US Supreme Court found that submerged lands under navigable waters in the original 13 States was the property of the States, as opposed to the Federal government.
The basic idea behind the Martin decision was that the States control their waterways (for navigation and riparian rights), and that the Constitution didn’t give the Federal government the right to take those valuable resources away.
FYI, this only applies to waters that were navigable at the time of Statehood. Sometimes it’s a factual question whether the waters were navigable.
Pollard argued that this didn’t apply because Alabama wasn’t one of the original 13 States.
The Trial Court found for Hagan. Pollard appealed.
The Trial Court found that since the land was underwater when Alabama became a State in 1819, the US had no authority to grant title to Pollard.
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. Pollard appealed.
The US Supreme Court affirmed.
The US Supreme Court noted that based on Martin, submerged land in the original 13 States always belonged to the States.
The Court found that when Alabama became a State it was admitted on an equal footing as the original 13 States.
Therefore, all the submerged land in Alabama was automatically owned by the State of Alabama, and was not owned by the Federal government.
The Court found that since the Federal government never owned the land, they did not have the right to sell it to Pollard.”
http://www.invispress.com/law/natural/pollard.html
For emphasis:
“The deal between Georgia and the Federal government was that the Federal government would take the land in trust in order to sell off parcels of it to settlers, which would eventually become new States.”
However,, notice that the case involved submerged land, and “submerged land in the original 13 States always belonged to the States”. It does not apply to dry land, which could be owned by the federal government.