Booth Fisheries Co. v. United States

Good Law
5 Alaska Fed. 271·6 F.2d 500·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2054
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 29, 1925No. 4504California820 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rudkin, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

The court below was of opinion that the amendment of 1924, providing that the mouth of a stream shall be taken to be the point determined as such by the Secretary of Commerce, and marked in accordance with his determination, made no change in the then existing law, unless and until the Secretary of Commerce saw fit to exercise the authority thus conferred. In other words, that the question whether the law has been changed or not depends, not upon the law itself, but upon the action or inaction of the Secretary of Comrherce. With this construction of the amendatory act we are unable to agree. Counsel for the government says in his brief: “At first glance, the mouth of a stream might be at any one of four places: (1) At low tide; (2) at high tide line on the sea beach; (3) at any point between low and high tide, the mouth shifting on the beach with the tide ; and (4) above high tide line, the mouth shifting with the rise and fall of the tidal waters.”

Whether counsel is correct or not we need not inquire, but the mouth of a stream cannot be ascertained with mathematical precision, and the uncertainty of the situation demonstrates the necessity…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.