retained the sovereignty, however, esems to be resumed in Article III ?2), giving her exclusive juriedicti? over wharves, docks and improvements, made ?nd "to be made," on the shore. This does not grant the right to mike s?ch improve- ments, but resumes it to exist. But the right would need the permission of New York, except on the hypothesis that New ?mey had sovereign power over the place. The conclusion reached has the very powerful sanction of the conduct of the parties and of the existing condition of things. See Moore v. McCru/re, 205 U.S. 214, 220. The deei- sions of the courta have been referred to. It was admitted at the bar that the record of transfers of such lands was kept in New Jersey, not in New York. New York never has attempted to tax the land, while New Jersey hss levied more or leto ?mila? taxes for many yenrs without dispute. See, e. Dutcher, 530; $ta4e v. J?rsq C/t//, 6 Vroom, 178; $. C., 7 Vroom, 471. New Jersey, not New York, regulates the impro?emente on the shore. Act of M?rch 18, 1851, P. L. 1851, p. 335; Rev. 1877, p. 1244); Act of April 11,1864, P. L. 1884, p. 681; M?h 31, 1869, P. L. 1869, p. 1017; 3 Gem Stat. 2784, 2786; New Yor/?, Lake Eri? & We?t.?r? R. R. Co. v. H?jh?, 46 N.J. 67. Without going into ?11 the detai?s that have been mentioned in the e?re- ful and s&tisfactory discussion of the question in the state courts we ?re of opinion that the land in question is subject to the sovereignty of the State of New Jersey, and that the exclusive jurisdiction given to the State of New York does not exclude the right of the sovereign power to tax.
�
