THE USE OF STREAMS 211 



Lake States, the South and the Pacific region, laws of this 

 character were enacted in various states. 1 The Federal 

 legislature 2 and courts 3 also recognized the navigability of 

 * streams which were not affected by the tide. 



In most American states any stream that, in its natural 

 condition, is capable of being used for the floating of logs, is 

 considered navigable, even though such flotation be practic- 

 able only during periods of seasonal high water; and the 

 public has a right to use such streams for the transportation 

 of logs, rafts or timber products in other forms. 4 A stream 



1. Ala. Act. Jan. 31, 1877, Laws of 1877, p. 140 (Sec. 7863, Penal Code, 1907); 



Act of Feb. 28, 1887, Laws of 1887, p. 132 (Sec. 7864, Penal Code, 1907). 

 Calif. Act. Mar. 7, 1889, Laws 1889, p. 85 (Repealed 1897. See Gen. Laws 



Calif., 1914, H. & D. 2221.) 

 Dak. Act. Jan 2, 1863, Laws 1862-3, p. 238, ch. 47. Repeated by act Jan, 8, 



1869, S, L. Ch. 11, p. 203. 



Idaho Laws of 1885, p. 177 (See Rev. St. 1887, Sec. 83O-836.) 

 Minn. Act Mar. 1, 1856, and Act July 28, 1858 (See Gen. Stat. 1849-58, p. 827J 

 Mo. Act June 25, 1839, Laws 1838-39, p. 83; Two Acts of Feb. 11, 1841; 



Laws 1840-41, pp. 114 and 115. (Transportation by water.) 

 N. M. Act Mar. 18, 1907, Laws of 1907, Ch. 47, Sec. 1 (Annotated Stat. 1915, 



Sec. 3371.) 

 Ore. Laws of 1874, p. 87, General improvement in streams. Laws of 1889, 



p. 105; County courts to declare non-navigable streams highways. 



See Lord's Oregon Laws 1910, Sec. 6075, and 57 Pac. 1017. 

 S. C. Act. 1853, Laws of S. C., Vol. 12, p. 305 (Civil Code 1912, Sec. 1928.) 

 Tenn. Act. Mar. 19, 1883, Ch. 71, p. 68. (Code 1896, Shannon, Sec. 1808.) 

 Wash. Act. Mar. 17, 1890, Sess. L. 1889-90, p. 470, all meandered streams 



highways; others if improved. Cf. Act. Mar. 7, 1891, S. L. 217. 



(See Codes & Stats. 1910, Rem. & Bal., Sec. 7118.) 

 Wis. Art. 4, Sec. 1, of 1st Constitution, adopted Feb. 1, 1848. Rev. Stats. 



1849, p. 248, Ch. 34; Act Apr. 2, 1853, S. L. Ch. 72, p. 74. 

 Wyo. Act. Dec. 9, 1869; See Gen'l. Laws 1st Sess. Terr. Assembly, p. 324. 



2. Act May 18, 1796 1 Stat. L. 468; Act. Mar. 3, 1803 (2 Stat. L., 235). 



3. U. S. v. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall (U. S.) 557; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.) 



443. 



But see U. S. v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690,698; Wisconsin v. Du- 

 luth, 96 U. S. 379; Oilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713. 



4. Ala. Lewis v. Coffee County, 77 Ala. 190, 54 Am. Rep. 55; Walker v. Allen. 



72 Ala., 456. 

 Biackman v. Mauldin, 164 Ala. 337, 51 So. 23. 



Calif. See American River Water Co. v. Amsden, 6 Cal. 443; Heckman v. 

 Swett. 99 Cal. 303, 33 Pac. 1099. 



Fla. Bucki v. Cone, 25 Fla. 1, 6 So. 160; Sullivan v. Jernigan, 21 Fla. 264. 



Ga. Railroad Co. v. Sikes, 4 Ga. App. 7. 60 S. E. 868. 



Idaho La Veine v. Lbr. Co., 17 Ida. 51., 104 Pac. 666. 



111. Healy v. Joliet Etc. R. Co., 2 111. App. 435; Hubbard v. Bell, 54 111. 

 110, 5 Am. Rep. 98. 



Ky. Ireland v. Bowman 130 Ky. 153, 113 S. W. 56. 



Ford Lbr. Etc. Co. v. McQueen, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 521; Goodin v. Ken- 

 tucky Lbr. Co., 90 Ky. 625; 14 S. W. 775, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 573; See 

 Murray v. Preston, 106 Ky. 561, 50 S. W. 1095, 90 Am. St. Rep. 232; 

 James v. Carter, 96 Ky. 378. Huff v. Kentucky Lumber Co. 45 S.W.84. 



Me. Brooks v. Cedar Brook Etc., Imp Co., 82 Me. 17, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459; 

 Lancey v. Clifford, 54 Me. 487, 92 Am. Dec. 561 ; Davis v. Winslow 

 51 Me. 264, 81 Am. Dec. 584; Gerrish v. Brown, 51 Me. 256, 81 Am. 

 Dec. 569; Veazie v. Dwinell, 50 Me. 479; Brown v. Black, 43 Me. 

 443; Knox v. Chaloner, 42 Me. 150; Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 

 (Footnote 4 continued on next page) 



