OCR Text |
Show the waterway which was 17 under ( discussion discussi'011 discussi011 ) , were taken into consideration by the court in arriving at its ( conclusion emclusion ) of ( nonnavigability lionnavigability ) ( and laild ) ( are aTe ) set out ( at -it it ) length in the opinion ( on oii ) page 299 . In the opinion ( sustaining sustainhig ) the nonnavigability of the ( Arkansas A-rkansas Arkansas ) River ( ( Brewer-Elliott BrewerElliott ) Oil & Gas ( Go Co ) . v . United States , 260 TL S . 77 ) , on the issue of ( navigability navicrability ) , the Supreme Court , at page 86 , rests upon the finding of the Circuit Court of ( Appeals Ippeals ) , and of the District Court . See 270 Fed . ( 100 10-0 ) and 249 ( Fed Ped ) . 609 . In the latter report , at page 619 , the District Judge sets forth in detail the ( evi- evi ) ( dence deiice ) with reference to the physical characteristics of the river . The river contained many shoals . It had a winding course , a broad channel , and ( a- a ) shifting , sandy bed and these characteristics were important factors by which the court reached the ( conclusion conclusioll ) of ( nonnavigability nolinavigability ) . In the case of the Fox ( Eiver River ) , considered in The Montello ( 20 Wall . 430 ) , the question of the rapids as an obstruction to navigation was discussed . The rapids , in that case , ( were Niere ) held not to render the river ( nonnavigable nonnavicrable ) , but in that case it appeared affirmatively that the river was used constantly as a highway of travel . This situation did not exist on the Red River , nor does it exist , nor has it ever existed upon the Green Colorado and ( San Saii ) Juan , , rivers . The total mileage of the Fox River used for ( navi- navi ) gation is ( 174 1741 ) 2miles ; in 28 miles it has a fall of |