OCR Text |
Show 3 In Thu Alontello , 20 Wall . 430 , after approving the above quoted language of The Daniel Ball decision , , the Court says , , at pages 441-2 : ( "It It ) would be a narrow rule to hold that in this country , unless a river was capable of being navigated by steam or sail vessels , it ( could coulct ) not be treated as a public highway . The capability of use by the public for purposes of transportation and commerce affords the true criterion of the navigability of a river , , rather than the extent and manner of that use . If it be ( cap- cap ) able in its natural state of being used for purposes of commerce , no matter in what mode the commerce may be conducted , it is navigable in fact , and becomes in law a public river or highway . Vessels of any kind that can float ( upon stpon ) the water , whether propelled by animal power , by the wind , or by the agency of steam , , are , or may become , the mode by which a vast ( com- com ) merce can be conducted , and it ( would vould ) be a mischievous rule that would exclude either in determining the navigability of a river . " Again , at page 443 , the court says : ( "Indeed Indeed ) , there are but ( few feiw ) of our freshwater rivers which did not originally present serious ( ob- ob ) structions to an uninterrupted navigation . In some cases , like the Fox River , they may be so great while they last as to prevent the use of the best ( instrumen- instrumen ) talities for carrying on commerce , but the vital and essential point is whether the natural navigation of the river is such that it affords a channel for useful commerce . If this be s6the river is navigable in fact , although its navigation may be encompassed with ( dif- dif ) by reason of natural barriers , such as rapids and ( sand-bars sandbars ) . " Complainant would supplement the test of navigability as uniformly announced by the United States Supreme Court by various other additions and amendments that will be later noted in this brief . Among the amendments offered is the contention that it must definitely appear that the alleged navigable water will in the future be a valuable and substantial channel of commerce . . If such contention has any merit the Supreme Court went far astray in deciding United States V . . Holt State ( Bank Ban7c ) , , 270 U . . S . . 49 , where it appeared |