Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1898-12-15

which sum was determined by the direct
ors OF plaintiffs corporation pursuant to
section Of the act Of March Is, 1898,
session laws, 1850, to be reasonable com
pensation. In the summer of 1896 the
defendant who, after the incorporation of
plaintiff and the erection of plaintiffs
improvement, engaged in the business of
logging from his own land on said stream
above the upper dam of appellant, hoated
into appellants lower dam 734 logs. at
that time there were other logs lying in
plaintiffs dam belonging to different par
ties, which the owners desired should be
driven to water. and it had become the
.lnty OF plaintiff under the act OF 1895.
supra, to sluice and drive such logs down
t river, and the question OF respondents
los in plaintiffs dam was such as to i'm
p"'e and Obstruct the driving OF sncil
OF r logs unless respondents logs were
alsn driven. 1t satisfactorily appears
tina; plaintiff notified respondent Neeson
to /, move his logs that Neeson claimed
the i!ht to float his logs down the river.
and insisted that he could do so if not
obs'rncted by plaintiffs dam.
Upon the question Of whether Neeson,
by the aid of splashes of water from his
own dam, could have floated his logs to
tide water, the evidence is very conflict
ing, but we deem it quite immaterial to
determine that question. One fact. and
in our judgment a controlling one, is
clear, viz: that in its natural condition,
and but for the expenditures OF money
upon the part Of plaintiff and its ncorpor
ators in the improvement Of the stream
and the removal OF the instructions here
inbefore mentioned, it would have been
utterly impossible for respondent to have
floated his logs thereon, SO that the ex
tent to which this claim on the part OF
respondent can 60, is that in the improv-
ed condition OF the stream he would be
able to float his logs down to the rivers
mouth by successive splashes from the
waters of his own dam.
1t is we'll settled that stream hich
can he only made navigabe or floatable
by artificial means is not public high
; way. (lIere follows numerous citatons.)
But suppose we concede (what the evi.
dence fails to estab'ish) that at occasional
periods Of brief duration freshets occur
which render the stream in its natural
condition floatable for logs and other tim
Der products, how is The case effected bv
that fact? Ii there is principle appl-
cation to the present case more firmly
settled in that law than all others, it is
that in the absence OF congressional in.
reference with, or control Of, the subject,
the state possesses the undoubted right
to promote by artificial means the navi-
gability or floatability OF rivers and
streams within its borders, and thereby
render them more useful and beneficial
to the pu lie. (Here fol ow numerous
cltatons.)
In Pound VS.. Turck, supra, the federal
supreme court holds this question under
consideration, and in the course of the
opinion SAYS: There are within the state
OF Wisconsin and perhaps other states,
many small streams navigable ior short
distance from their mouths in one of the
great rivers Of the country, Ivy steam
boats, but whose greatest value in water
carriage is as Outlets to saw logs, sawed
lumber, coal, salt, etc. In order to de-
! Continued on page eight.)