Every member of the public has the right of navigation in waters capable of such use, without reference to whether the land beneath the water belongs to the public or to individual owners. The rights which individual owners may have in the land below the water or in the shores or banks are

Power v. Tarzewells, 25 Grat.

(Va.) 786; Trustees of Brook-haven v. Strong, 60 N. Y. 56; Heckman v. Swett, 107 Cal. 276, 40 Pac. 420; Fagan v. Armistead, 33 N. C. 433.

86. Smith v. Andrews [1891] 2 Ch. 678; Johnston v. O'neill

(1911) App. Cas. 552; Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 500, 21 L. Ed. 133; Beckman v. Kreamer, 43 111. 447, 92 Am. Dec. 146; Waters v. Lilley, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 145, 16 Am. Dec. .133; Lincoln v. Davis, 53 Mich. 375. 51 Am. Rep. 116, 19 N. W. 103; Hooker v. Cummings, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 90, 11 Am. Dec. 249; Lemheek v. Nye, 47 Ohio St. 336, 21 Am. St. Rep. 828; Baylor v. Decker, 133 Pa. St. 168: Winans v. Willetts, - Mich. -, 163 N. W. 993; Griffith v. Hol-man. 23 Wash. 347. 83 Am. St. Rep. 821, 54 L. R. A. 178. 63 Pac. 239; State v. Theriault, 70

Vt. 617, 41 Atl. 1030, 43 L. R. A. 290, 67 Am. St. Rep. 695. See New England Trout & Salmon Club v. Mather, 68 Vt. 338, 33 L. R. A. 569, 35 Atl. 323. And compare Hogg v. Beerman. 41 Ohio St. 81, 52 Am. Rep. 71; and cases cited post, Sec. 421, note 99.

87. Bagott v. Orr, 2 Bos. & P. 472; Shiveley v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 38 L. Ed. 331; Bickel v. Polk, 5 Har. (Del.) 325; Peck v. Lockwood, 5 Day (Conn.) 22; Moulton v. Libbey, 37 Me. 472, 59 Am. Dec. 57; Wilson v. Inloes. 6 Gill. (Md.) 121; Lakeman v. Burnham, 7 Gray (Mass.) 437: Allen v. Allen, 19 R. I. 114.

88. 3 Kent, Comm. 417; Bickel v. Polk. 5 Har. (Del.) 325; Coo-lidge v. Williams, 4 Mass. 140; Cortelyou v. Van Brundt, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 357. 3 Am. Dec. 439.

89. Duncan v. Sylvester, 24 Me. 482. 41 Am. Dec. 400; Matthews v. Treat, 75 Me. 594; Locke v.

L546 Real Property. [Sec. 421 subordinate to this right of navigation in the public, and consequently they cannot place any structure or article upon the land below the water which is calculated substantially to interfere with navigation.90

"Floatable" streams - that is, streams which, while not capable of navigation by vessels or boats, are capable of use for floating timber to market - are, in this limited sense, navigable, and the rights of private owners of the land thereunder are regarded as, to some extent, subject to the rights of the public to use them for floating timber.91 Streams are to be regarded as "floatable," it seems, even though they can be thus used only at certain seasons of the year, provided these seasons recur with regularity.92 The rights of the public to float timber on such streams are not exclusive of the rights of owners of land under or abutting on the stream to dam or otherwise utilize the waters thereof, it being sufficient if there is left a reasonable passage for timber.93

Motley, 2 Gray (Mass.) 265; Whit-taker v. Burhans, 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 237.

90. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 24 L. Ed. 224; Yolo County v. City of Sacramento, 36 Cal. 193; Charleston & S. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 73 Ga. 306; Wadsworth v. Smith, 11 Me. 278, 26 Am. Dec. 525; Brooks v. Cedar Brook & S. C. R. Imp. Co., 82 Me. 17, 7 L. R. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459, 19 Atl. 87; Com. v. Chapin. 5 Pick. (Mass.) 199; Smith v. City of Rochester, 92 N. Y. 463; Hogg v. Beerman, 41 Ohio St. 81, 52 Am. Rep. 71; Barclay Railroad & Coat Co. v. Ingham, 36 Pa. St. 194; Cobb v. Bennett, 75 Pa. St. 326; Volk v. Eldred, 23 Wis. 410; Stevens Point Boom Co. v. Reilly, 46 Wis. 237, 49 N. W. 978.

91. Lewis v. Coffee County, 77 Ala. 190, 54 Am. Rep. 55; Wads-worth v. Smith, 11 Me. 278. 26 Am. Dec. 525; Thunder Bay River

Booming Co. v. Speechly, 31 Mich. 336, 18 Am. Rep. 184; Carter v. Thurston, 58 N. H. 104, 42 Am. Rep. 584; Shaw v. Oswego Iron Co., 10 Or. 371, 45 Am. Rep. 146: Gatson v. Mace, 33 W. Va. 14, 5 L. R. A. 392, 25 Am. St. Rep. 848, 10 S. E. 60; Olson v. Merrill, 42 Wis. 203; Lebanon Lumber Co. v. Leonard, 68 Ore. 147, 136 Pac. 891; Fortson Shingle Co. v. Skag-land, 77 Wash. 8, 137 Pac. 304.

92. Lewis v. Coffee County, 77 Ala. 190, 54 Am. Rep. 55; Hubbard v. Bell, 54 111. 110, 5 Am. Rep. 98: Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9, 50 Am. Dec. 641; Holden v. Robinson Mfg. Co., 65 Me. 216; Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. Speechly, 31 Mich. 336, 18 Am. Rep. 184; Smith v. Fonda, 64 Miss. 551, 1 So. 757; Morgan v. King, 35 N. Y. 454. 91 Am. Dec. 58; Commissioners of Burke County v. Catawba Lumber Co.. 116 N. C. 731, 47 Am. St. Rep.

Incidental to the right of navigation is the right to anchor one's vessel in the stream for a reasonable time, either adjoining one's own land or elsewhere, in such a way as not unduly to obstruct navigation or to pro-vent access to the water, for purposes of navigation, by other persons who may own land abutting thereon.94 But there is no incidental right of using adjoining land for a mooring or landing place,95 or of going thereon for the purpose of towage.96 On principle, moreover, it seems,97 the fact that the public have a right of navigation over private land should give them no right of hunting,97a

829, 840, 21 S. E. 941, and note; Haines v. Hall, 17 Ore. 165.

93. Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. Speech ly, 31 Mich. 336, 18 Am. Rep. 184; Kretzschmar v. Meehan, 74 Minn. 211, 77 N. W. 41; Foster v. Sears port Spool & Black Co., 79 Me. 508, 11 Atl. 273; A. C. Conn. Co. v. little Suamico Lumber Mfg. Co.. 74 Wis. 652, 43 N. W. 660.

94. Gann v. Whitstable Free Fishers, 11 H. L. Cas. 192; Original Hartlepool Collieries Co. v. Gibb, 5 Ch. Div. 713; Bainbridge v. Sherlock, 29 Ind. 364, 95 Am. Dec. 644; Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125; Delaware River Steamboat Co. v. Burlington & B Steam Ferry Co., 81 Pa. St. 103. Compare Wall v. Pittsburg Harbor Co., 152 Pa. St. 427.

95. Ensminger v. People, 47 111. 384; Bainbridge v. Sherlock, 29 Ind. 364, 95 Am. Dec. 644; Smith v. Atkins, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1619, 53 L. R. A. 790, 60 S. W. 930; State v. Wilson, 42 Me. 9; Steamboat Magnolia v. Marshall, 39.

Miss. 109; Weems S. B. Co. v. People's S. B. Co., 214 U. S. 345, 53 L. Ed. 1024.

96. Ball v. Herbert, 3 Term R. 253. And see, as to trespasses on the banks while driving logs, or in the contruction of booms, Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9, 50 Am. Dec. 641; Hooper v. Hob-son, 57 Me. 273, 99 Am. Dec. 769. Compare Weise v. Smith, 3 Or. 445, 450; Lownsdale v. Gray's Harbor Boom Co., 21 Wash. 542, 58 Pac. 663, 3 Kent. Comm. 426.

97. See editorial note, 27 Harv. Law Rev. 750.

97a. Adams v. Pease, 2 Conn. 481; Schulte v. Warren, 218 111. 108, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745, 75 N. E. 783; Sterling v. Jackson, 69 Mich. 488, 37 Am. St. Rep. 4H5, 37 N. W. 845; Hall v. Alford. 114 Mich. 165, 72 N. W. 137, 38 L. R. A. 205; State v. Shannon. 36 Ohio St. 423; Hooker v. Cnm-mings, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 90;Fitz-hardinge v. Purcell, 77 Law Journ. Ch. Div. 529.

Or fishing.98 But there are occasional decisions recognizing such a right."

98. Hartman v. Tresise, 36 Colo. 146, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 872, 84 Pac. 685; Schulte v. Warren, 218 111. 108, 75 N. E. 783; New-england Trout & S. Club v. Mather, 68 Vt. 338, 33 L. R. A. 569, 35 Atl. 323.

99. As to hunting, see Fores-tier v. Johnson. 164 Cal. 24, 127 Pac. 156; Diana Shooting Club v. Husting, 156 Wis. 261, 145 N. W. 816. As to fishing, see Willow River Club v. Wade, 100 Wis, 86 42 L. R. A. 305, 76 N. W. 272; Bodi v. Winous Point Shooting

Club, 57 Ohio St. 226, 48 N. E. 944 (semble); Winous Point Shooting Club v. Slaughterbeck, 96 Ohio, 139, 117 N. E. 162 (sem-ble.)

The Colonial ordinance in force in Massachusetts and Maine, by which the title to the flats or shore was conferred on the upland owner, expressly reserved the right to every householder in the community to go upon such flats for fishing and fowling. See Comm. v. Alger, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 53; Moore v. Griffin, 22 Me. 350.