There is more to the ruling than the link you referenced.
I just found this, “ That by these articles of the compact, the land under the navigable waters, and the public domain above high water, were alike reserved to the United States, and alike subject to be sold by them; and to give any other construction to these compacts, would be to yield up to Alabama, and the other new states, all the public lands within their limits.” and am not done. Link:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pollard_v._Hagan/Opinion_of_the_Court
Not that I would question google’s version of the case, but revisionist history is prevalent in our society, for the good of the people of course.
Martin Armstrong is pretty solid on history, not that anyone is perfect. I would love to see some Lawyers dive into this.
Have to do more research at a later date. Gotta go finish a roof before the rain comes.
Hope everyone had a great Easter or First Fruits depending on your belief.
Blessings!
I think it’s pretty clear that the “public lands” there are referring to the sort of public lands addressed in the case. That is, those that are public by nature of their function (e.g., involving waterways).
And, I didn’t link to “Google’s version of the case”, the source is a constitutional law book that Google has scanned.
I don’t think you really need to put too much time into digging too much deeper, given that the SC has clearly upheld the federal ownership of such lands in case after case.