OCR Text |
Show 51 that the stream or the lake had actually supported a substantial ( water-borne waterborne ) commerce . The Daniel Ball , ) The Montello , Economy Light and Power ( Com- Com ) pany v . . the United States , St . Anthony Falls Water Power Company v . The Board of Water ( Commission Commission- Commission ) ¬ ers , supra . The outstanding thought in all of these cases was the use of the stream or lake its , a highway of ( com- com ) merce . 3 . In all cases coming before this Court , in which the question of navigability was ( an a-n an ) issue , there was ( evi- evi ) dence of varying degrees of actual operation of boats both privately and for profit . Oklahoma v . Texas , ( Brewer-Elliott BrewerElliott ) Oil Company v . United States , United States v . Rio Grande Dam and ( Irrigation 1rrigation ) Company , Leovy v . United States , supra . This Court has never held that the mere operation of small boats although commercially in some cases was sufficient evidence to constitute the rivers as highways of commerce . Decisions of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal and of the United States District Courts are to the same effect : Harrison v . ( File Fite ) , North ( Amer Amer- Amer ) ican Dredging Company v . Mintzer , Toledo Liberal Shooting Company v . Erie Shooting Club , Gulf and I . Railway Company v . Davis , supra ; Gratz v . McKee 270 Fed . 719 . 4 . Physical characteristics of a river which prevent practical use for substantial commerce are given great weight on the question of navigability . . ( Brewer- Brewer ) Elliott Oil and Gas Company v . ( United 'United United ) States , ( Okla- Okla ) |