OCR Text |
Show 4487 Cleary- D 2900 MR. FARSWORTH: Counsel is just trying to get into the record, as I view this direct examination, some general conclusions of this witness with reference to navigability. Of course, that is what he is leading up to. That is not the way to prove it. If this witness has any facts that bear on the question of whether a water route a practicable route or not, he ought to elicit those facts from this witness. Instead of getting at it in that way, which I content is the only proper way, he is asking why he did this, and why he did that, and seeking to get in indirectly something that would be improper if asked directly. THE SPECIAL MASTER: I suppose any facts regarding the development of the land and properties adjacent are pertinent. I assume you will put in evidence for the state of Utah to show this land is capable of development in many ways, by roads, by water navigation, and all possible uses. In other words, the state of Utah I assume will put in evidence to show the capacities of this whole country for development. I suppose the government is entitled to do the same thing. MR. FARSWORTH: And I have no objection. THE SPECIAL MASTER: And if this country is capable of having roads through it , which roads might or might not aid in navigation, I think the facts are pertinent. |