(46 S.Ct.)

rule recognized and applied in federal courts, rather than according to rule prevailing in state where lands may be located.

4. Appeal and error 854 (2)-Finding as to navigability not disturbed, because wrong standard applied, if same result would have obtained according to right standard.

Finding as to navigability, asserted as basis of a right arising under the Constitution of the United States, will not be disturbed because wrong standard was applied, where record shows that according to correct standard same results would have been obtained.

ther. By the law of Missouri the decree of the Circuit Court is final with regard to the territorial extent of the district. The bill further states that the plaintiffs have sought redress in the courts of the State without avail. The defendants plead that the plaintiffs sued in a State Court to cancel the assessments upon them and to annul the judgment of the Circuit Court; that thereupon the defendants applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition, and that the Court made the prohibition absolute, upholding the constitutionality of the law. State ex rel. Norborne Land Drainage District v. Hughes, 294 Mo. 1, 240 S. W. 802. The defendants urge these facts to show that the plaintiffs Under Constitution and laws of the United had an adequate remedy at law by bringing States, water navigable in fact is navigable in either the judgment of the Circuit Court or law, and a stream or lake is navigable in fact, that of the Supreme Court here. It is hard to when used or susceptible of being used in its see why these decisions do not make the ques-commerce over which trade and travel are or natural and ordinary condition as a highway of tion sought to be opened here res judicata, may be conducted in customary modes, irrealthough not so pleaded. But in any event spective of the particular mode in which such we see no ground for disturbing the decree use is or may be had, or of occasional difficulbelow. The District Court rightly held that ties.

5. Navigable waters 1 (3)—"Navigable water" under federal law defined.

the plaintiffs Hellwig and Summers must [Ed. Note. For other definitions, see Words fail for the additional reason that the assess- and Phrases, First and Second Series, Navigaments against them were less than the juris- ble.] dictional amount, but this is not very important as on the merits the bill must be dismissed.

Decree affirmed.

(270 U. S. 49)

UNITED STATES v. HOLT STATE BANK et al.

(Argued April 24-27, 1925. Decided February 1, 1926.)

No. 47.

1. Navigable waters 36(1)-Lands under water belong to state, subject to power of Congress to control navigation.

Lands underlying navigable waters within state belong to the state in its sovereign capacity, subject to paramount power of Congress to control for purposes of navigation, and subject to any rights therein granted by United States before creation of state, by way of performing international obligations or carrying out other public purposes.

2. Navigable waters 36(1)-Disposition of lands under water before creation of state not lightly inferred.

Disposal of land underlying navigable waters by United States before creation of state including such lands is not lightly to be inferred, unless such intention was definitely declared or otherwise made plain.

3. Navigable waters (1) -Navigability as basis of right under Constitution determined according to federal rule.

Navigability, when asserted as basis of a right arising under the Constitution of United States, is determinable according to general

6. Navigable waters 1(7)-Evidence held to establish navigability of lake.

Evidence held to establish navigability of lake as affecting title to land thereunder. 7. Navigable waters 36(1)-Lands under waters in Indian reservation held not disposed of by United States before creation of state. Lands underlying navigable waters within an Indian reservation under treaties with the Chippewas concluded September 30, 1854, and February 22, 1855, held not to have been disposed of by the United States to the Indians, so as to preclude state subsequently created, including such lands, from acquiring the title thereto previously held by the United States.

Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Bill in equity to quiet title by the United States against the Holt State Bank and others. Decree of dismissal was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (294 F. 161), and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The Attorney General and Mr. W. W. Dyar, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Mr. A. N. Eckstrom, of Warren, Minn., for appellees.

*51

*Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity by the United States to quiet in it the title to the bed of Mud Lake-now drained and uncovered-in Marshall county, Minnesota, and to enjoin the defendants from asserting any claim thereto. After answer and a hearing the District Court entered a decree dismissing the bill on the merits. The United States appealed to the

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

*52

Circuit Court of Appeals, where the decree | thus had passed into private ownership; but was affirmed (294 F. 161), and then by a fur- the absence of necessary drainage was prether appeal brought the case here. venting or retarding the disposal of the others. Congress caused an examination to be made to determine whether drainage was physically and economically feasible (Act June 21, 1906, c. 3504, 34 Stat. 352, and Act March 1, 1907, c. 2285, 34 Stat. 1033), and a report of the

59th Cong. 2d Sess.). Shortly thereafter Congress gave its assent to the drainage of the lands under the laws of the state by declaring that all lands not entered and all entered lands for which a final certificate had not issued should “be subject to all of the provisions of the laws of said state relating to the drainage of swamp or overflowed lands for agricultural purposes to the same extent and in the same manner in which lands of a like character held in private ownership are or may be subject to said laws." Act May 20, 1908, c. 181, 35 Stat. 169, § 1 (Comp. St. § 4970).

The laws of the state, to the application of which assent was thus given, authorized the establishment of public drainage ditches by

*Mud Lake is within what formerly was known as the Red Lake Indian Reservation, which had an area exceeding 3,000,000 acres and was occupied by certain bands of the Chippewas of Minnesota. Most of the res-examination was made (H. R. Doc. No. 607, ervation, including the part in the vicinity of Mud Lake, was relinquished and ceded by the Chippewas comformably to the Act of January 14, 1889, c. 24, 25 Stat. 642, for the purposes and on the terms stated in that act. It provided that the lands when ceded should be surveyed, classified as "pine lands" and "agricultural lands," and disposed of in designated modes; that such as were classified as agricultural should be disposed of under the homestead law at a price of $1.25 an acre; and that the net proceeds of all, whether classified as pine or agricultural, should be put into an interest-bearing trust fund for the Chippewas and ultimately disbursed for their benefit or distributed among them. The cession became effective through the President's approval March 4, 1890. Thereafter the lands in the vicinity of Mud Lake were surveyed and platted in the usual way; the lake being meandered and represented on the plat as a lake. The tracts bordering on the lake were classified as agricultural, opened to homestead entry, and disposed of to homestead settlers; patents being issued in due course. The defendants now own and hold these tracts under the patents. After the homestead entries were allowed, and after most of them were carried to patent, the lake was drained and its bed made bare by a public ditch constructed under the drainage laws of the state. The United States then surveyed the bed with the purpose of disposing of it for the benefit of the Indians under the act of 1889, and later brought this suit to clear the way for such a disposal. The lake in its natural condition covered an area of almost 5,000 acres and was traversed by Mud river, a tributary of Thief

*53

river, which was both navigable in itself and directly connected with other navigable streams leading to the western boundary of the state and thence along that boundary to the British possessions on the north.

The ditch which drained the lake was established as a means of fitting for cultivation a large body of swamp lands in that general vicinity. It is as much as 30 miles long, and,

like Mud river, passes through the lake and discharges into Thief river. Its depth exceeds that of the lake, and its width and fall are such that it has drawn the water out of the lake. Its construction was begun in 1910, and was so far completed in 1912 that the lake was then effectively drained.

The swamp lands which the ditch was intended to reclaim were within the ceded portion of the Red Lake Reservation. Some had been disposed of under the act of 1889 and

*54

judicial proceedings and provided that *such ditches might be so established as to widen, deepen, change or drain any river or lake, even if navigable and whether meandered or not. Laws 1905, c. 230; Gen. Stat. 1913, §§ 5523, 5525, 5531, 5553, et seq. The ditch which drained Mud Lake was established by judicial proceedings begun under these laws after the congressional consent was given, and it is not questioned that those proceedings made it entirely lawful to construct the ditch through the lake and to drain it as an incident of the reclamation project in hand.

The defendants insist that the lake in its natural condition was navigable, that the state, on being admitted into the Union, became the owner of its bed, and that under the laws of the state the defendants, as owners of the surrounding tracts, have succeeded to the right of the state. On the other hand, the United States insists that the lake never was more than a mere marsh, that the state never acquired any right to it, that the surveyor should have extended the survey over it when he surveyed the adjacent lands, and that the United States is entitled and in duty for the benefit of the Chippewas. bound to dispose of it under the act of 1889

Both courts below resolved these conten

tions in favor of the defendants; and whether they erred in this is the matter for decision here.

[1] It is settled law in this country that lands underlying navigable waters within a state belong to the state in its sovereign capacity and may be used and disposed of as it may elect, subject to the paramount power of Congress to control such waters for the purposes of navigation in commerce among the states and with foreign nations, and subject to the qualification that where the Unit

(46 S.Ct.)

the boats in the deeper parts or channels. | setting apart of what was not ceded,1 nor any Some years after the lake was meandcred, vegetation such as grows in water got a footing in the lake, and gradually came to impede the movement of boats at the end of each growing season, but offered little interference at other times. Gasoline motor boats were used in surveying and marking the line of the intended ditch through the lake and the ditch was excavated with floating dredges. Our conclusion is that the evidence requires a finding that the lake was navigable within the approved rule before stated. From this it follows that no prejudice resulted from the recognition below of the local rule respecting navigability.

[7] We come then to the question whether the lands under the lake were disposed of by the United States before Minnesota be

*58

came a state. An affirmative disposal is *not asserted, but only that the lake, and therefore the lands under it, was within the limits of the Red Lake Reservation when the state was admitted. The existence of the reservation is conceded, but that it operated as a disposal of lands underlying navigable waters within its limits is disputed. We are of opinion that the reservation was not intended to effect such a disposal and that there was none. If the reservation operated as a disposal of the lands under a part of the navigable waters within its limits it equally worked a disposal of the lands under all. Besides Mud Lake, the reservation limits included Red Lake, having an area of 400 square miles, the greater part of the Lake of the Woods, having approximately the same area, and several navigable streams. The reservation came into being through a succession of treaties with the Chippewas whereby they ceded to the United States their aboriginal right of occupancy to the surrounding lands. The last treaties preceding the admission of the state were concluded September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109, and February 22, 1855, 10 Stat. 1165. There was no formal

*59

affirmative declaration of the rights of the Indians therein, nor any attempted exclusion of others from the use of navigable waters. The effect of what was done was to reserve in a general way for the continued occupation of the Indians what remained of their aboriginal territory, and thus it came to be known and recognized as a reservation. Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, 389, 22 S. Ct. 650, 46 L. Ed. 954. There was nothing in this which even approaches a grant of rights in lands underlying navigable waters; nor anything evincing a purpose to depart from the established policy, before stated, of treating such lands as held for the *benefit of the future state. Without doubt the Indians were to have access to the navigable waters and to be entitled to use them in accustomed ways; but these were common rights vouchsafed to all, whether white or Indian, by the early legislation reviewed in Railroad Co. v. Schurmeier, 7 Wall, 272, 287–289, 19 L. Ed. 74, and Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States, supra, pp. 118-120 (41 S. Ct. 409), and emphasized in the Enabling Act under which Minnesota was admitted as a state (chapter 60, 11 Stat. 166), which declared that the rivers and waters bounding the state "and the navigable waters leading into the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said state as to all other citizens of the United States." Section 2.

We conclude that the state on its admission into the Union became the owner of the bed of the lake. It is conceded that, if the bed thus passed to the state, the defendants have succeeded to the state's right therein, and the decisions and statutes of the state

brought to our attention show that the con-
cession is rightly made.
Decree affirmed.

1 Other reservations for particular bands were specially set apart, but those reservations and Reservation and the bands occupying it. See Treaty concluded October 2, 1863, 13 Stat. 667.

bands are not to be confused with the Red Lake