124 BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

of the river, extending from the head of little falls to tide. There-
fore, this expression, so far as regards the claim of the plaintiff,
cannot possibly refer to any other kind of mill-sites, than such as
have been described and designated by the diagram ABC. The
places spoken of are such only as have the natural qualities of
mill-sites; they are not such as the new work may make conveni-
ent for erecting mills, but such only as were so naturally at that
time.

Again, it is said, that " the persons possessors of such situation
may design to improve the same." Whence it appears, that the
subjects spoken of are naked natural mill-sites; not any situation
ou which a mill has been erected; but merely those which the
owner "may design to improve;" and it must have the qualities
which have been shewn to belong to such a natural mill-site; for,
otherwise it cannot be regarded as a place " convenient for erect-

ing * a mill," or as such a situation which the owner " may
131 design to improve." The sort of place spoken of is, thus,
clearly specified and ascertained; and the owner is described, as
"the person possessor of such a situation;" that is, as a person who
is possessor of a mill-site. But a natural mill-site may exist, and
yet no one, or any two or more individuals may be the legal
owners of it; because, a natural mill-site being incapable of divi-
sion, if any portion of the land necessary for the head and tail
race, and the position of the mill be separated from the rest, by
being held in severalty by different owners, there exists, in fact,
no legal right in any one to such natural mill-site. And certainly
the Legislature could never be understood to say of any one, "that
he may never design to improve," and property to which he has no
legal right, in anyway it might be improved, if other parcels were
united with it, aud the whole were held altogether by one and the
same owner.

This plaintiff founds his claim, under this section, upon the fact
of his being one of the '' persons possessors of such a situation."
But, it appears that this large tract of land binding on the River
Potomac, from the little falls to tide, was originally granted by the
State in distinct parcels to different persons; that it has undergone
since several divisions, and re-unions; and that it does not appear;
from anything in the case, to what separate parcel this plaintiff is
entitled; nor does it appear, whether the parcel he owns is suffi-
cient to constitute a mill-site; and was so held by him, or those
under whom he claims, at the time this Act wars passed, without
any division, or alienation of any of its necessary constituent
parts, since that time; nor is there anything in the case which
shews who were the possessor of mill-sites in the year 1784, or
when this suit was instituted, or at any other time.

"It is the intention of this Act, not to interfere with private
property, but for the purpose of improving and perfecting the said