OCR Text |
Show 400 Similarly, it noted the need for coordination of forest policies with river-development programs.52 The Commission asserted that there can be no doubt that the authority of Congress "reaches to the remotest sources in the mountains of every navigable stream." 83 After reviewing numerous decisions of the Supreme Court, it concluded "that the Government may * * * constitutionally extend its jurisdiction to ques- tions more remotely connected with the rights of navigation, or even wholly unrelated." M Elsewhere, the Commission made this forecast: M With the increasing unity of our national life and the growing necessity of securing for human needs the max- imum beneficial use of the waters of every stream it will become increasingly necessary to treat every stream with all its tributaries as a unit. In the nature of the case so comprehensive a policy could be successfully administered only by the Federal Government, and con- sequently the eventual desirability of Federal control is easy to predict. 52 Id. pp. 28-37 and App. V, pp. 205-273. 83 Id. p. 47. 84Id. p. 44. These were among the excerpts quoted: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." McCuUoch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421 (U. S. 1819). "It is not a prohibition of any obstruction to the navigation, but any obstruction to the navigable capacity, and anything, wherever done or however done, within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States which tends to destroy the navigable capacity of one of the navigable waters of the United States, is within the terms of the prohibition." United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 708 (1899). "Congress has authority in the exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States, to construct, or authorize individuals or corporations to construct railroads across the States and Territories of the United States." California v. Central Pacific Railroad Co., 127 U. S. 1, 2 (1888). Particular emphasis was also placed upon the two Green Bay cases: Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 142 U. S. 254 (1891) ; and Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U. S. 58 (1898) ; see supra. pp. 19-20. " Sen. Doc. No. 469, p. 52. |