OCR Text |
Show 200 whose testimony is abstracted on page 220 of the Appendix to ( Complainant's Complainants ) brief . . Here , as in the Mintzer case , the Court gave consideration to the fact that this land had been conveyed to the state of as swamp land and the state in turn had conveyed it to individuals . . At page 682 of the opinion it appears that in places there was a depth of 3 feet but there were large areas where the depth was only 12 inches deep except on unusual occasions . . It was a natural feeding ground for duck and other water fowl and was not a ( "highway highway ) , never has ( -been been ) , and can never be . . " ( Par- Par ) ticular stress is placed upon the fact that it could not be used by ( the" the ) public . Here again we find a situation where there is no terminus to which the public have the right to go . At page 682 the court says : ( "It It ) is nothing more or less than a marsh ( open- open ) ing into the lake . To be navigable in law , it must be navigable in fact ; that is , of being used by the public as a highway for the transportation of " commerce . In Manigault v . S . M . ( Wwd Ww-d Wwd ) & Co . et al . , 123 Fed . . 707 , which case is not cited by Complainant , the ( -Court Court ) says at page 713 : ( "In In ) order to make a stream navigable by the public , it is not enough that it is ( floatable-that floatablethat ) is , capable of ( floating- floating floating ) vessels or other craft . It must be a public highway . To be a public highway , , it must have a terminus , a quo the public can enter it , and a terminus ad ( quern quem ) they can leave it . ' " In calling attention to the last cited case we do not wish to be understood as contending for the doctrine there announced . As already stated , there is a conflict in the authorities with respect to that doctrine and it is immaterial in the case at bar . We merely refer to it as an apt ( state- state ) ment of a doctrine which obviously influenced the Court in each of the above cases relied upon by Complainant . . In Gidf & L Ry . Co . of Texas et al . V . Davis et al , , 26 Fed ( 2d ) 930 , it appeared that a bridge across Mud Bayou had been constructed and maintained by the plaintiff ( rail- rail ) road companies since 1896 . . It was a part of the plan of construction of the Intercoastal Waterway that the proposed |