OCR Text |
Show 2 law with reference to the question that has been most ( proin- proin ) inently stressed throughout the case , to wit , the question of navigability . THE TEST OF NAVIGABILITY . In ( The Tito ) Daniel Ball , 10 Wall . 557 , at 563 , Mr . Justice Field said : ( "Those Those ) rivers must be regarded as public ( nav- nav ) igable rivers in law which are ( navigable -navigable navigable ) in fact . And they are navigable in fact when they are used , or are susceptible of being used , in their ordinary condition , as highways for commerce , over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water / * Complainant expresses complete accord with the ( lan- lan ) guage just quoted , and in view of the fact that the ( sub- sub ) stance of Mr . Justice ( Field's Fields ) statement has been reiterated in every later decision of the Supreme Court of the United States where the question of navigability was before that Court , it would be idle for either of the parties in this case to voice its dissent . Complainant seeks to avoid this clear and unambiguous statement of the law in ( The Tlze ) Daniel Ball and in succeeding cases by construing cases like United States v . Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co . , 174 U . S . 690 , and Oklahoma , v . ( Texas Tex" Tex ) , , 258 U . S , 574 , as in effect holding that in order to be ( navi- navi ) gable actual use of a river in commerce must be frequent ; ; that if the navigation of a river is only occasional , , it is not navigable . An analysis of those cases will disclose that they stand for no such proposition . As construed by Complainant the words ( "or or ) susceptible of being used , " which are always found in the Supreme ( Court's Courts ) definition of navigability , , are surplusage and utterly meaningless . . An analysis of any , decision rendered by that Court , wherein a river has been declared ( non-navigable nonnavigable ) because of the nature of its use in commerce , will reveal that such conclusion was based upon the fact that the ( river's rivers ) ( susceptibility swceptibility ) to such use was ( "ex- ex ) ( ceptional" ceptional ) or only ( "occasional occasional ) . " It would appear to be ( Complainant's Complainants ) contention that these rivers have not been navigated to the extent or in the manner or by the type of water craft necessary in order to meet the criterion of navigability established in the decided cases . . |