Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138394
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:35:49+00:00

Document:
12 spondingly, exercise of that power in the construction of navi- gable channels and the Panama Canal was upheld.30 On the other hand, repeated decisions made it clear that the states have proprietary control over navigable waters and their beds, subject to rights conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution.81 Accordingly, whether title to the beds of navigable rivers is in the state or in the owners of the riparian lands depends upon state law.82 Waters Under the Commerce Jurisdiction of Congress.- It thus becomes important to consider judicial criteria for de- termining what constitutes waters subject to the jurisdiction of Congress under the Commerce Clause, since resolution of many conflicts between federal rights and state or private rights depends on that determination. Navigable Waters of the United States.-The scope of navi- gation control under the commerce power, it was early estab- lished, brings within the jurisdiction of Congress "all navigable Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605 (1912); Louisville Bridge Go. v. United States, 242 U. S. 409 (1917) ; Economy Light Co. v. United States, 256 U. S. 113 (1921). "Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379 (1877) ; Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24 (1907). "See, e. g., Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410 (U. S. 1842) ; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 229-230 (U. S. 1885) ; Smith v. State of Mary- land, 18 How. 71, 74-75 (U. S. 1855) ; Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 Wall. 423, 436 (U. S. 1867) ; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338 (1876) ; Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 667 (1891) ; Ear din v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 381-382 (1891); Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 435-437 (1892) ; Shwely v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 57-58 (1894) ; Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile, 187 U. S. 479, 491 (1903) ; McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70, 79-80 (1909) ; Scott v. Lattig, 227 U. S. 229, 242-243 (1913) ; Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 583 (1922) ; United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U. S. 49, 54-55 (1926) ; Massachusetts v. New York, 271 U. S. 65, 89 (1926) ; United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 75 (1931) ; United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1, 14 (1935) ; United States v. Arizona, 295 U. S. 174,183 (1935) ; Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 337-338 (1936); James v. Bravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 140-141 (1937); United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 423-424 (1940) ; reh. den., 312 U. S. 712 (1941) ; United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 30-31 (1947), decree expanded, 332 U. S. 804 (1947). " See, e. g., United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53, 60 (1913).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.