OCR Text |
Show 6001 notice of the fact that the Kansa River was navigable at Topeka, Kansas, and refused to have any testimony upon the point, and the Supreme Court of the United States said that the Supreme Court of any State had a right to take judicial notice of the fact that any river was navigable at the State Capital. The Special Master. Well, the Court did not say just that. It said that if she State Court took upon itself, with-out evidence, to decide the question, the Supreme Court could not pronounce it in error, because it was a State question. Mr. Blackmar. Well, is that not just another way of saying what I have said? Does it not in substance say that the Court, if it wants to, may take judicial notice of the fact? The Special Master. I do not think so. I think it says that if the Supreme Court of the State saw fit to do that, the United States Supreme Court on writ of error could not reverse it; that was a question of fact which the State Court had de-cided for itself. Mr. Blackmar. Now, assume that a case of that kind was instituted in the United States District Court, and the United States District Court desired to take evidence upon that ques-tion. Here you have got your 160 acres of land which adjoines the river. Now, would it mean anything by way of evidence to |