| OCR Text |
Show 91 . But , as was pointed out in Shively v Bowlby , 152 U . S . 1 , 49 , 57-58 , the United States early adopted and constantly has ( ad- ad ) hered to the policy of regarding lands under navigable waters in acquired territory , while under its sole dominion , as held for the ( ulti- ulti ) mate benefit of future States , and so has ( re- re ) frained from making any disposal thereof , save in exceptional instances ( when vhen ) impelled to particular disposals by some international duty or public exigency . It follows from this that disposals by the United States ( dur- dur ) ing the territorial period are not lightly to be inferred , and should not be regarded as intended unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain . VIII UTAH SINCE STATEHOOD HAS TREATED THE RIVERS AS BEING NONNAVIGABLE Exception 1 ) The scientific investigation by the United States over a period of 60 years into the possible uses of the rivers in Utah precludes any conclusion that the rivers are navigable . Utah has from the date of statehood until 1925 permitted the Government to make expenditures for these investigations without comment or claim , intimating that the State asserted ownership to the river beds based ( upon upoii ) navigability . . Since 1896 scores of placer miners ( have liave ) operated in the beds of these rivers claiming rights under location notices posted and filed under the ( laws la-svs lasvs ) of 1 1 |
