The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-05-02
OKLAHOMA LOSER
IN BATTLE FOR
RED RIVER BED
CONTINUED FROM PAGE oND

CONTINUED FROM PAGE oNB
where II owns lands and therefore
shares In riparian rights. the court
polnted out that Oklahoma based
it's clnim on the fact that tho Red
river was n navigable stream.
The constitutional rule of equal.
ity Is that a state owns the iand
under nnvigable rivers Justice van
deventer said:
"Navigability In fact II n test OF
navigability In law. The statements
that It was navigable tor its entire
length originated ut n ume where
there was no reliable data TOT
proof"
Justice Nandeventer then re-
viewed the efforts of tho govern
ment TO make the river nevignble
We conclude that no part OF the
river I'm Oklahoma II nnvigablo ana
therefore that the title did not pass
10 Oklahoma on its admission into
the Union. II the state has law
full claim to any part OF the bed,
Il Is only such as may he incident j
to its ownership OF riparian lanjs
on the northerly bank. And 50 OF
the grantees and lesses OF the estate.
The court then set out that al
the riparian claims pressed TO its
attention relate to the bed OF the
river between the ninth degree of
west longitude and the mouth of
the North Fork and said that the
matter must be considered IN the
light of matters which 1t proceeded
to state.
The courts said that In making
allotments to kiowas. Commanding
and Apachcs. four sections In each
Al.
purposes for the future state of
oklahoma. on these school sec
tlons and on them alone oklahoma
was given riparian rights TO the
middle OF the stream. What some
persons In reading the decision
thought might bo n clue to the
the exact location of the south
bank was contained in tho section
OF todays decision as To riparian
owners.
Channel Is Defined.
one of the questions involved n
the riparian claims relates to whaI
was intended by the terms middle
Of the channel" and mid channel
The court said "Wo think II wa'
the channel extending from one
cut bank to another which carried
the water IA tino of substantial
flow that was tho only channel an,
therefore the main channel.
other questions common To al
rlpariau claims are whether tht
disposal of tho lands on the north
crly banks carried with 50 any righ
to the river he'd In front Of then
and II so whether this right cN
tcnds to tho medal liro of IN,
stream or to the Texas boundary
Along the opposite bank.
ON these questions the p1rtlci
are Tar apart. Tnc state OF Okla
homa and the placer miners ius,s
TINT no right To tho river be,
passed with tho upland; the Unite,
states that such n right did pass hu
extends only 10 the medal line Ont
the severe riparian claimants th'
the right passed ana extends TO tu
Texas boundary along the opposi.
bank. Whore the United state
owns the bed Of a uon-navlgnll
stream aud tue upland en- ono %
both sides, II OF course is FREQ, whpO
disposing of the upland to rotol
all or any part Of the river hud an
whether In any particular case
has doue go is essentially n quos
tlon of What ls intended.
Throws out Mine Claims
The evidence shows that th
United States INTENDED 10 retail
that part Of the bed The cour
held that tested by the common laN
these conveyonces OF riparian tract
conferred a tile extending not mere
ly TO tho waterliue but 60 the mid
die OF the stream. In tr,owing ou
the placer miner claimants. IN
court said that these men Chime
tho land under the right TO eNplor