OCR Text |
Show ing vessels , or flat 50 boats , nor ( upon up-on upon ) the ( difficul diffieul- diffieul ) ties attending navigation , but upon the fact whether the river in its natural state is such that it affords a channel for useful commerce . The attempts to navigate the Arkansas River are set out in more detail in the opinion of the District Court . ( See United States v . ( Brewer-Elliott BrewerElliott Brewer-Eilliott BrewerEilliott ) Oil Co . , 249 Fed . 609 , 619 . ) Other attempts at ( navi- navi ) gation have been digested from the record and printed in the Appendix to this brief , pages 196-198 . The physical characteristics of the Arkansas River are not unlike those of the Red River . Summary of the law of navigability From the above cases the following general ( con- con ) clusions may be drawn , which will serve as a guide for the consideration of the evidence in this case with reference to the physical characteristics of the rivers and the extent of the use of boats . 1 . The rule of navigability for rivers , as announced by this Court , is the same whether the question is one of navigable waters of the United States , as appears in the cases of The Montelloj The Daniel Ball , Leovy v . United States , supra , or one of title as appears in United States v . Holt State Bank ; Brewer Elliott Oil Company v . United States ; Oklahoma v . Texas , supra . This Court has cited the cases interchangeably , without distinction when the issue was navigability . 2 . No lake or stream has been declared navigable by this Court unless it appeared from the evidence |