OCR Text |
Show 74 even broader significance in its service to and use by every group in that economy. Moreover, it must be remembered that transportation by watercraft is but one aspect of an enormous industry which also employs carriers by rail, by road, by air, by pipe, and even by belt. For these reasons, water-borne transportation cannot intelligently be appraised in isolation from the industry as a whole. Therefore, while the necessities of time and space require us to attempt a separate and brief examination of the principal features of statutes dealing with the use of navigable waters in transpor- tation of commerce, it must not be assumed that the signifi- cance of these laws can be assessed independently. On the contrary, it would be necessary to view them as interrelated with laws governing other methods of transportation, and fur- ther to evaluate their administration. The narrower purpose of our particularized survey is to demonstrate the extent of congressional attention to transportation as one of the uses of water resources. From the beginning of our history, domestic transportation by water has been a matter of national concern. The Treaty of Independence, for example, contains a provision assuring that the Mississippi River "shall forever remain free and open" to citizens of the United States and the subjects of Great Britain.3 Similarly, the Northwest Ordinance, adopted dur- ing the first session of the first Congress, declared that:4 The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to s Art. VIII, 8 Stat. 80, 83. See also Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, Inter- national Acts, Protocols, and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers : 1776-1909, Sen. Doc. No. 357, 61st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 580, 583 (1910) ; Hill, Leading American Treaties, pp. 22-43 (1931). 4 Adopted by Act of August 7, 1789, 1 Stat. 50, 52. For opinions constru- ing this provision, see Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678, 688-690 (1882); Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543, 546-548 (1886); Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U. S. 288, 295-296 (1887); Harman v. Chicago, 147 U. S. 396, 410-411 (1893) ; Economy Light Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113, 120-121 (1921). |