| OCR Text |
Show ( the'varyiiig thevaryiiig ) local rules 9 would give the ( Oonsti- Oonsti Donsd- Donsd ) ( Mon Von ) a diversified operation where ( uniformity uniforinity ) was intended . But notwithstanding the ( er- er ) ror below in accepting a wrong standard of navigability , the findings must stand if the record shows that according to the right standard the lake was navigable . The same result is reached in the case of ( Economy Econway ) Light Co . v . United States , 256 U . S . ) 113 , where a decision of the Supreme Court of ( Il- Il ) linois ( determining determinhig ) a stream nonnavigable was ( re- re ) jected . The Federal rule was applied . In ( Brewer-Elliott BrewerElliott Breiver-Elhott BreiverElhott ) Oil Co . v . United States ( 260 260t ) ( TJ U ) . S . 771 it was said , at page 87 : But it is said that the navigability of ( tlie th-e the ) Arkansas River is a local question to be ( set- set ) tled by the legislature and the ( courts coarts ) of ( Ok- Ok ) ( lahoma lahoina ) , ( and aiid ) that the Supreme Court of the State has held that at the very point here in dispute , the river is ( navigable navicrable ) ( , . ) State v . ( Nolegs ATolegs ) , 40 Okla . , 479 . A similar argument was made for the same purpose ( in iii ) Oklahoma v . Texas , supra , based on a decision by ( tke the ) Supreme Court of Oklahoma as to the ( Red Recl ) River . Hale v . Record , 44 Okla . 803 . The controlling effect of the state ( conrt court ) decision was there denied because the United States had not been there , as it was ( not iiot ) here , a party to the case in the state court . Econ ¬ ( omy oiny ) ( Light Lig7d ) & ( Potver Power ) Co . v . United States , 256 U . S . 2 1132 123 . In such a case as this the navigability of the stream is not a local question for the state tribunals to settle . |
