| OCR Text |
Show At the time this order 00 was promulgated the ( Presi- Presi ) dent and other officers of the Government ( had bad ) the benefit of the reports of Powell ( Compl . . Exhibit 51 ) , Ives ( Compl . Exhibit 72 ) , Wheeler ( Compl . . Exhibit 73 ) , and of many other military and scientific ( expedi- expedi ) tions ( See Appendix to Wheeler Report ) . If with the information at hand , the Government chose to include part of the river beds in the reservation it was because those rivers were known to be , at the places described , , nonnavigable streams . This inference is clearly ( justi- justi ) fied by the language of this Court in the case of ( Brewer- Brewer ) Elliott Oil Co . v . United States , 260 U . ' ( 'S S ) . 77 , 86 : : It is a natural inference that Congress in its grant to the Osage Indians in 1872 made it extend to the main channel of the river , only because it knew it was not navigable . This would be consistent with its general ( pol- pol ) icy . Rev . Stats . , Sec . 2476 ; Oklahoma v . Texas , 258 U . S . 574 ; Scott v . Lattig , 227 U . S . 229 , 242 ; Railroad Company v . ( Schur- Schur ) meir , 7 Wall . 272 , 289 . If the Arkansas River is not navigable , then the title of the Osages as granted certainly included the bed of the river as far as the main channel , ( be- be ) cause the words of the grant expressly carry the title to that line . The significance of the Executive Order of ( Presi- Presi ) dent Arthur in including in the reservation a portion of the beds of the San Juan and Colorado rivers is pointed out by this Court in United States v . Holt ( Stale State ) Bank , 270 U . . S . 49 ) 55 : |
