OCR Text |
Show 81 by past use in commerce , that commerce actually in esse or at least in all reasonable possibility in posse is essential to navigability , I think can not be doubted . In view of the lack of commerce upon the river in the past , the ( Master's Masters ) conclusion as to the future is too speculative upon which to base susceptibility of navigation for the future . THE FACTS ( COMPABED COMPAMED ) WITH THE FACTS Ill OTHER CASES Sections of three great western rivers have been before this Court on the issue of navigability . In Oklahoma v . Texas , 258 U . S . 574 , the part of Ahe Red River forming the boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma held to be nonnavigable above the ( Oklahoma-Arkansas OklahomaArkansas ) boundary line . In ( Brewer-Elliott BrewerElliott ) Oil and Gas Company v . United States , 260 U . S . 77 , the Arkansas River was held ( non- non ) navigable above the mouth of the Grand River . In the case of the United States v . Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company , 174 U . S . 690 , the Rio Grande River in New Mexico was considered and held to be nonnavigable in that State . Oklahoma v . Texas was a case within the original Jurisdiction of this Court , and the testimony was taken by a Commissioner , who made no findings of fact . . With reference to the Western section of the river , , this Court states ( p . 587 ) that only at short intervals when the rainfall was running off could even very |