| OCR Text |
Show 155 part of his report; that in his comparison of the three rivers involved in this case, he took in the larger rivers on which he had profiles and official survey bulletins that could be easily obtained, and that he knew were large rivers, and were generally called navigable. He has included the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Missouri and the Columbia. R. 333. There are very marked differences between the other rivers and the rivers involved in this case. The Snake and Salmon Rivers in the Northwest are the only two large rivers in the west that he has made a study of. R. 334. In making this comparison between other rivers and those involved in this case, he did not use the Snake and Salmon Rivers, as he did not consider they were navigable rivers. ( Discussion by Special Master and Counsel regarding the portion of the Snake River held to be navigable. Scott wersis Lettis ( 227 U. S. 229) R. 335- 336.) He has figures on all the rivers of the entire United States and can produce the figures on the Snake River, similar to that he has produced on the other rivers, R. 335. In stating that the Snake River was not a navigable river he had in mind that stretch of the river as far down as the Pittsburgh Bar, as he knows the Snake River was Navigable from its confluence with the Columbia River upstream as far as the bar. He is not familiar with the Sacramento River. He believes that the Sacramento River is a smaller river than the Colorado, and in a general way knows that the Sacramento rises in California in the Sierras, but he has never had anything to do with this river. He does not know that the fall per mile is much greater than that of the Colorado, the Green and the San Juan Rivers. R. 338. |
