Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-19
COURT DECISIONS
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest 10
Our Pennle.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virsinian-P Ilot)
UNITED STATES v. R. G. D. & /. CO

UNITED STATES W r. G. d. s. I. CO.
Supreme Court Of the United States.
May ~, 1899.
THE COURTS CAN. TAKE JUDICIAL.
NOTICE THATaA RIVER is NAYI-
GABLE, BUT NOT OF THE FACT
AT WHAT POINT .NAYIGABILTTY
CEASES.
LOGS. POLES AND RATS ARE
+ .FLoATED DOWN "A RIVER DOES
q NOT Make 1T NAVIGABLE.
a. STATE CANNOT DESTROY THE
RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES
AS a RIPARIAN OWNER TO TIE
CONTINUED FLOW OF THE
WATERS.
Z ALLOW THE OR
OBSTRUCTION OF WATERS
ABOVE THE POINT OF N1,v1GA-
DIL1TY SO AS TO DESTROY OH
1NJUR0 THE NAvIGABlLlrY.
This was u suit in equity by the
United States to restrain the defend-
ant company from building IL dam
across the lilo Grande river and usinS
the water for the purposes of irrisa-
ton. The bill alleged that the Rio
Grnnde was a navigable river. and that
the diversion of the water would Sc
riously injure its navigability. The
lower court dismissed the bill, and the
United States appealed.
The court says:
1t is reasonable that the courts take
judicial notice that certain rivors are
naVlSable, and others not, for these are
matters of general knowledge. But 1t
is not SO clear that 1t can fairly be said
IN respect to n river known to be nav
igable, that it Is, or ought To be, IL
matter OF common knowledge at what
particular place between It's mouth and
It's source naviSabiity ceases. And so
1t may be well doubted whether the
courts Will take judicial notice of that
fact. 1t would eeem,that such n mat
ter was one requiring evidence and TO
be determined by proof. The mere fact
that logs, poles, and RATS are tloated
down stream occasionally does not
make 1t navigable river.
we may properly limit our inquiry
to the effect OF the proposed dam and
TO the effect OF the proposed claim and
appropriation of waters upon the nav
liability of The Rio Grande, and in case
such proposed action tends to destroy
such navigaDility, the extent of the
right OF the government 10 interfere.
inc bill charges that such appropri-
alton will seriously obstruct the nav
LIABILITY of the river from the place
or the dam 10 the mouth OF the stream
The defendants aeny this, but rs the
court found there was no equity in the
Dill, and dismissed the suit on that
ground. we must for the purposes OF
this inquiry assume that it is true, that
the defendants are intending to appro-
pirate the entire unappropriated flow Of
the Rio Grande at the place where they
propose to construct their dam, and
that such appropriation will seriously
affect the naVigabilty OF the river
where 1t is navigable.
the unquestioned rule of the common
law was that every riparian owner was
entitled TO the continued natural flow
OF the stream. 1t is also true that as
TO every stream within its dominion n
State may change this common law
rule and permit the appropriation of the
moving waters for such purposes as it
deems wise
Although this power belongs to each
State, vet two limitations must be rec
ognized: First, that in the absence of
specific authority from Congress a
State cannot by it's legislation DESTROY
the right of the United States, as the
owner OF lands bordering on a stream
to the continued flow of the waters; so
far, at least as may be necessary for
the beneficial uses of the government
property. Second, that it is limited by
the Sunerior-pnM OF the aaaral-
eminent to secure the uninterrupted
navigability OF all navigable streams
within the limits of the United States
Reversed.
ADAMS " WEDNrD