THE USE OF STREAMS 213 



exceptionally. high water, l or only through the continuous 

 application of force by persons or devices on the bank 2 or in 

 boats 3 is not a public highway. However, interception to 

 continuous navigation by rapids or falls does not destroy 

 the navigable character of the stream if it is actually capable 

 of navigation both below and above the obstruction, 4 and 

 the character of a stream as a public highway for the trans- 

 portation of logs and other timber products will not be 

 affected by obstructions which arise from accident or the 

 intentional act of some one. 5 The fact that the stream has 

 been used ordinarily by only a limited number, or by cer- 

 tain classes of persons does not preclude the general public 

 from using it, 6 but a stream is not subject to the public 

 easement when the stage of water is such as to make it in- 

 capable of floating logs. 7 Except as provided by statute 

 a stream is not subject to the public easement, if it can be 

 made capable of floating logs only through artificial improve- 

 ment. 8 



1. See Lewis v. Coffee County, 77 Ala. 190, 54 Am. Rep. 55; Rhodes v. Otis, 33 



Ala. 578, 73 Am. Dec. 439; Hubbard v. Bell, 54 111. 110, 5 Am. Rep. 98; 

 Irwin v. Brown (Term. 1889) 12 S. W. 340. 



2. Hooper v. Hobson, 57 Me. 273, 99 Am. Dec. 769; Treat v. Lord, 42 Me. 552 



66 Am. Dec. 298; Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9, 50 Am. Dec. 641; Wads- 

 worth v. Smith, 11 Me. 278, 26 Am. Dec. 525; See Haines v Hall, 17 Ore. 

 165, 20 Pac. 831, 3 L. R. A. 609, (Injunction), Olson v. Merrill. 42 Wis. 213. 



3. Morgan v. King, 35 N. Y. 454, 91 Am. Dec. 58. 



4. The Montello, 20 Wall (U. S.) 430; Spooner v. McConnell, 1 McLean (U. S.) 



337; Matter of State Reservation Comm'rs, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 537, 16 Abb. N. 

 Gas. (N. Y.) 159. 



5. Treat v. Lord, 42 Me. 552, 66 Am. Dec. 298. 



Shingle Co. v. Skagland, 77 Wash. 8, 137 Pac. 304. 



6. Moore v. Sanborne, 2 Mich. 519, 59 Am. Dec. 209. 



But compare Meyer v. Phillips, 97 N. Y., 485, 49 Am. Rep. 538; Haines v. Hall, 

 17 Ore. 165, and the citations under (1) above. 



And see Rhodes v. Otis, 33 Ala. 578, 73 Am. Dec. 439-a, license to float logs 

 on a stream. 



7. Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. Speechly, 31 Mich. 336, 18 Am. Rep. 184, 



Mathews v. Mfg. Co., 35 Wash. 662, 77 Pac. 1046. -^ 



8. Ky. Banks v. Frazier, 111 Ky. 909, 64 S. W. 983, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1197. 

 Me. Person v. Rolfe, 76 Me. 385; Holden v. Robinson Mfg. Co. 65 Me. 215; 



Wadsworth v. Smith, 11 Me. 278, 26 Am. Dec. 525. 

 Mich. Koopman v. Blodgett, 70 Mich. 610, 14 Am. St. Rep. 527; Moore v. 



Sanborne, 2 Mich. 519, 59 Am. Dec. 209. 



N. H. Connecticut River Lbr. Co. v. Olcott Falls Co., 65 N. H. 290. 

 N. Y. DeCamp v. Thomson, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 528, 44 N. Y. Suppl. 1014; 



Ten Eyck v. Warwick, 75 Hun. 562. And see DeCamp v. Dix 54 



N. E. 63 (N. Y. law unconstitutional, stream too small.) 

 Ohio Jeremy v. Elwell, 3 O. Cir. Dec. 186, 5 O. Cir. Ct. 379. 

 Ore. Nutter v. Gallagher, 19 Ore. 375; Haines v. Hall, 17 Ore. 165, 21) Pac. 



831, 3 L. R. A. 609. 



(Footnote 8 continued on next page) 



