OCR Text |
Show Profitable and 80 future commerce ( M . R . 110 , Exception 46 ) The evidence amply establishes that the ( commer commer- commer ) cial experiments upon the river have resulted in failure and abandonment . . Commerce in boats can hardly be said to be ( "practical practical ) , " ( "useful useful ) , , " ) or of ( "any any ) service / ' unless attended with some degree of profit . A river can not become a ( "highway highway ) of ( com- com ) merce , " unless those who operate boats can ( accom- accom ) plish these trips with sufficient profit to themselves to warrant continuance , and this is especially true when the rivers possess characteristics which mill in the future interfere with river traffic as much as it has in the past . The ( Master Afaster ) speculates on future commerce . ( M . R . 112 , Exception 47 . ) This Court did not do that in Oklahoma v . Texas ; or in ( Brewer-Elliott BrewerElliott ) Oil Co . v . United States , supra . In Harrison v . ( File Fite ) , 148 Fed . 781 , it was said ( "a a ) theoretical or potential navigability , or one that is temporary , precarious , and unprofitable is not sufficient . " In Gulf & I Railway Company v . Davis , 26 F . ( 2nd ) 930 , 933 ; the court said : Plaintiffs say that the rule has never been better stated than in Harrison v . Fite ( C . . C . . A . . ) 148 F . . 783 , quoted with approval in North American Dredging Co . v . Mintzer ( C . . C . . A . . ) 245 F . 297 ) , 309 . . That plaintiffs are right in insisting , where a stream has never been impressed with the character of navigability |