OCR Text |
Show ties attending navigation ( 153 1.53 ) , but upon the fact whether the river in its natural state is such that it affords a channel for ( useful usefal ) commerce . The attempts to navigate the Arkansas River are set out in more detail in the ( opinion ophdon ) of the District Court . ( See U . S . v . ( Braver-Elliott BraverElliott ) Oil ( & d- d ) Gas Co . , 249 Fed . 609 j S . 0 . 619 . ) Other attempts at ( liavi- liavi ) gation have ( been beeii ) digested ( from froin ) the record ( and aild ) printed in the appendix to this brief , pages 221-223 . The physical characteristics of the ( Arkansas ArIcalisas ) River are not unlike those of the Red River . It also appears ( from froin ) the testimony that large ( sums sians ) of money had been appropriated by the ( Govern Govern- Govern ) ment to improve navigation upon this river . In United States v . Holt State Bank , 270 U . S . 2 49 , 56 , the rule of navigability was reaffirmed in this ( language 1ainguage ) : The ( rule rifle ) long since approved by this Court in applying the Constitution and laws of the United States is that streams or lakes which are navigable in fact ( must niust ) be regarded as navigable in law ; that they are navigable in fact whea they are used , or are susceptible of being used , in their natural and ordinary condition , as highways for commerce , over which trade and travel are or may be ( con- con ) ducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water ; and further that ( naviga naviga- naviga ) bility does not depend on the particular mode in which such use is or may be ( had- had ) whether by steamboats , sailing vessels or ( flat- flat ) ( boats-nor boatsnor ) on an absence of occasional ( diffi- diffi ) |