The banks of public rivers are private property of the adjacent owners as fully as their other land. The public has no right to land upon them or upon the shore adjacent thereto; . Wetmore v. White Lead Co., 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 70. There is no right of way along the margin of lakes and navigable rivers unless acquired by express grant or prescription ; Ledyard v. Ten Eyck, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 102. One floating his property down a stream has no right, without a license, to use the banks of the stream to aid him ; Olson v. Merrill, 42 Wis. 203. The right to raft timber does not carry with it the right to deposit it upon private property prepara tory to being rafted; Compton v. Hankins, 90 Ala. 411, 8 South. 75, 9 L. R. A. 387, 24 Am. St. Rep. 823; Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18, 77 Am. Dec. 435 ; Smith v. Atkins, 110 Ky. 119, 60 S. W. 930, 53 L. R. A. 790, 96 Am. St. Rep. 424. The banks of a river are not subject to the servitude of use by navigators. They cannot land on the banks against the will of the owner except in case of peril, in which case vessel& may Iand, either boat or cargo, at any point that safety may require; Ensminger v. People, 47 III. 384, 95 Am. Dec. 495.
Upon the acquisition of territory by the U. S., whether by cession from one of the states, or by treaty with a foreign country, or by discovery and settlement, the title and dominion over land under tide water passes to the United States for the benefit of the whole people and in trust for the several states ; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct. 548, 38 L. Ed. 331.
In .England, many rivers originally private have become public, as regards the right of navigation, either by immemorial use or by acts of parliament ; Woolr. Wat. 40. In this country, all rivers, whether tidal or fresh water, are of common right, navigable high ways, if naturally capable of use for the float- . ing of vessels, boats, rafts, • or even logs, or "whenever they are found of sufficient ca pacity to float the products of the mines, the forests, or the tillage of ;the country through which they flow, to market ;" Browne v. Sco field, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 239 ; Brown v. Chad bourne, 31 Me. 9, 50 Am. Dec. 641; Scott v. Willson, 3 N. H. 321; People v. St. Louis, 5 Gilman (III.) 351, 48 Am. Dec. 339 ; Stuart v. Clark's Lessee, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 9, 58 Am. Dec. 49 ; Depew v. Board, 5 Ind. 8. As to the nav igability of rivers, see NAVIGABLE WA TERS. The state has the right to improve all such rivers, and to regulate them by lawful en actments for the public good ; McCullough v. Wall, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 69, 53 Am. Dec. 715 ; Moor v. Veazie, 31 Me. 361; Board of Com'rs. v. Pidge, 5 Ind. 13. Any obstructiOn of them without legislative authority is a nuisance, and any persons having occasion to use the river may abate the same, or if injured there by, may receive his damages from its author: Minturn v. Lisle, 4 Cal. 180 ; Arundel v.
M'Culloch, 10' Mass. 70; Missouri River Pack et Co. v. R. Co., 1 McCrary 281, 2 Fed. 285 ; Seaman v. Mayor, 80 N. Y. 239, 36 Am. Rep. 612 ; Garitee v. Mayor, 53 Md. 422 ; Meyers v. St. Louis, 8 Mo. App. 266. See BRIDGE. One who seeks to ahate an obstruction in a navigable stream and for an injunction must allege and show that the commerce for which he would utilize the stream is lawful ; Spo kane Mill Co. v. Post, 50 Fed. 429. By the or dinance of 1787, art. 4, relating to the north western territory, it is provided that the nav igable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying-places between the same, shall be common high ways and forever free ; Comes of Homochitto River v. Withers, 29 Miss. 21, 64 Am. Dec. 126.
Congress has absolute power over the nav igable waters of the U. S. and may declare what constitutes obstruction thereto. The act of March 1, 1893, created a California debris commission and prohibited hydraulic mining "directly or indirectly injuring the navigabil ity" of the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems ; the commission may, on petition, grant permission to mine. The act is intend ed to prohibit such mining until such permis sion is granted ; North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. v. U. S., 83 Fed. 2, 27 C. C. A. 395.
To bring obstructions and nuisances in nav gal/le waters within a state within the cog nizance of the federal courts, there must be a federal statute directly applicable to such U. S. v. Boom Co., 81 Fed. 658, 26 C. C. A. 547.
Rivers, when naturally unfit for public use, as above described, are called private rivers. They are the private property of the riparian proprietors, and cannot be appropriated to public use, as highways, by deepening or im proving their channels, without compensation to their owners ; Walker v. Board of Public Works, 16 Ohio 540 ; Munson v. Hungerford, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 265. See WATER-COURSE.
A river, then, may be considered—as pri vate in the case of shallow and obstructed streams ; as private property, but subject to public use, when it can be navigated; and as public, both with regard to its use and property. Some rivers possess all these qualities. The Hudson is mentioned as an instance; in one part it is entirely private property ; in another, the public have the use of it ; and it is public property from the mouth as high up as the tide flows ; Mun son v. Hungerford, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 265.