OCR Text |
Show 3275 Dent- 1300 THE SPECIAL MASTER: That is the view I take. Even if there were proof -- not in this case, but in some hypothetical case -- if there were proof that a river was navigable in 1896 on the admission of a state to the Union, and if there were subsequent proof that thirty years later it was non- navigable, that fact of non- navigability would only have a bearing as tending to show that thirty- three years ago the same conditions existed. That is as I understand the law. MR. BLACKMAR: I think that situation appeared in that Holt State Bank case, and probably a ramification into that one that involved a river in northern Illinois. MR. FARNSWORTH: I think probably it is an academic difference, but as it occurs to me this is the situation of a case of this character; title vests at the time of statehood; that is the date that fixes the passing of title. The question is whether of not a stream was a navigable stream within the meaning of the law at that date. I do not think it would have to be navigable at that date. THE SPECIAL MASTER: What is that? MR. FARNWORTH: I do not think it would even have to be navigable at that date to be a navigable stream. I think the test is, what was its nature in its natural condition? Of course here, probably the two are the same. |