352 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument for De/endant ?n Error. 209 U.S. Runn|ng water is incapable of ownership, and neither the State nor the riparian owners have any title in it ?ntil it is appropriated.. Swat v. S?acu?, 129 N.Y. 316, 335; C/ty o! S?ac?e v. Stack, 169 N.Y. 235, 245;'$oc/?y v. Morris Ca?d, 1 N.J. Eq. (Saxton) 157, 189; Cobb v. Damport, 32 N.J. Law, 369; Attornql G?n?ra/ v. Dd. & Bound Brook. R., 27 N.-J. Eq. 631; Higgins v. Flamington Water Co., 36 N.J. Eq. 538, 543; A/br/?ht v. Cortwr/ght, 64 N.J. L. 330, 337; Simmons v. Pat- erson, 60 N.J. Eq. 385, 389; Doremus v. City o/ Paterson, 65 N.J. Eq.' 711, 713. Mr. Robert H. McCart?r, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, for defendant in error: The State, as a lower owner, is entitled to preserve the integrity of the stream so that it will come to it unimpaired in quantity. Attorney Genera/ v. Ddaware & Bound Brook R. R. Co., 12 C. E. Gr. (27 N.J. Eq.) 631; Attorn?yGenera/v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corporation, 133 Massachusetts, 361; Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina, 144 U.S. 550, and cases there cited; Story's Eq. Jun, �22, 923;'Kerr on Injunctions, 262; I Joyce on Injunctions, 120; M/ssom-/v. Illinois et 180 U.S. 208, 243. The State, without regard to its lower proprietorship, is entitled to an injunction as successor to the crown and as representative of the public;' and this, te6, notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Constitution reded upon by the appellant. The State has a supervisory interest and property in the waters that lie or flow in it, entitling and requiring it, as the representative of the public, to preserve the same, and that this right and du?y have been inherited from the King of Eng- N.Y. 463, 477 and cases cited; Farnhara on Waters, �33i' 138, 138a, 140a and 141; Conn?ticut River Lumb? Co. v. Alcott Falls Co., 65 N.H. 290; S.C., 21 Atl. Pep. !090; Stat?. v. Ohio Oil Co., 150 Indiana, 21; S.C., 49 N. E. Pep: 809;
�
