Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/351

BUTZ V. OITY OF ST. LOUIS. 339 �witnesses testifled that the main channel and current of the river, after the building of the dike, continued actually to flow along the Missouri shore^hug- ging the end of the dike, and was not deflected to the east of said island ; nor was there any increased volume of water caused by said dike flowing along the Illinois shore. The dike in question has been since removed, at the instance of United States engineers, and a new dike built by the United States, Con- necting said island with the Illinois shore above plaintifE's land, and closing the " chute " there for all navigable purposes. The necessary effect of the United States dike is to flll up the east "chute," so that large accretions will follow. In the light of the testimony the court finds that plaintiffs' land was not washed away in consequence of the dike built by defendant. The court declares the law to be that under the foregoing facts the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover. This ruling is based on the f act that the dike built by the defendant did not damage the plaintiffs. If it had done so, then the plaintiffs would have been entitled to recover to the extent of the injury sustained. Judgment for defendant. �Thomas C. Fletcher, ior-plainiiSB. �Leverett Bell, for defendant. �Treat, D. J. Many propositions have been submitted to the court which are of large moment connected with the navigation and im- provement of the Mississippi river. Time does not permit a detailed review of the many authorities on the subject. To enter upon that field of inquiry would compel an exhaustive consideration of the many decisions of state courts bordering upon the Mississippi river, and of the United States supreme court with reference thereto. The eastern boundary lin« of Missouri, for certain purposes, is to the middle of the main channel of the river. In the absence of a federal statute the state of Missouri could authorize improvements on the Missouri shore to be executed by state, municipal, or other organizations ; and the same legal right exists in the state of Illinois. �It is clear that no supposed authority by either state could justify the destruction or substantial impairment of the navigation of the river which is free and common to all the states. In the absence of federal legislation whatever a state permits is necessarily subordinate to the general easement or rights of navigation. It is a well known physical law that the frequent changes of the channel are dependent on. transient conditions, so that safe navigation exacts, in the absence of artificial aids, constant observation of natural effects and change.^. The channel may be one year in one direction, and in another year in a different direction. The one or the other alluvial shore may be alternately eroded. The contraction of the channel, artificially, causes a, seouring, whereby, greater depth being obtained, the same volume of water passes in the contracted channel. If the flow of ��� �