OCR Text |
Show We have observed no intimation 217 in any federal decision that upstream navigation is at all necessary to meet the criterion of navigability . We cannot see how or in what respect a downstream trip with freight or passengers could be any more or any less ( "useful useful ) ( commerce" commerce ) than an ( up- up ) ( stream streara ) trip with the same cargo or passengers . As stated in The Montello , 20 Wall . 430 , the test is not the extent or manner of the use of a stream but its capability of use in its natural state ( "for for ) purposes of commerce , no matter in what mode the commerce may be conducted . " At page 441 of the opinion in that case , ( immediately inunediately ) following a ( state state- state ) ment that the mode by which the commerce is or may be conducted or the difficulties attending navigation is not the ( true trae ) test of navigability , the Court says : ( "If If ) this were so , the public would be deprived of the use of many of the large rivers of the country over ( which whick ) rafts of lumber of great value are ( con- con ) stantly ( taken -taken taken ) to market . " It is doubtless a matter of common knowledge that no part of these rafts of lumber are again returned upstream . In United ( States Staies ) v . Mississippi & ( Rum ftvz ) River Boom Co . et al , 3 Fed . 548 , it was held that the running of logs downstream is a public right ( "common common ) to all . " In Heerman v . Beef Slough ( Manicf'g Manicfg Manuf'g Manufg ) Co . et aL , 1 Fed . 145 , the same statement is made . ( 2 ) what extent if any , will navigability from one bank to another affect the status of the river ? We find no federal case giving a concrete answer to this question . We have found one State Court case ( con- con ) taining the statement that the ferrying of a river from one side to the other establishes its navigability at that section only and does not establish its navigability in other sections . It would seem to us that this statement of the State Court is correct . ( 3 ) a case not involving interstate commerce what is the definition of commerce in its relation to navigability , and what constitutes useful commerce under the rule laid down in the latest case of the Holt State Bank 1926 ? |