The Daily state register. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1870-1872, 1871-12-15
VANSICKLE VS.. HAINES.
"Veritas" Considered.

winch eAclI6S our CO1IiLllo
seration. Never before have We
witnessed SO feeble an apology for SO
great a wrong; so puerile an attempt
to bolster up a weak and erroneous
opinion. Whatever may have been
the intention, whether to turn pub
lie Indignation from the court, al
lay the fears of those interested in
the water question:" Of deceive
ranchmen into Il security as false as
it is fatal, it is painfully apparent
from the antiquities and errors
found throughout the communica-
ton that the author had no Just con-
ception or proper comprehension Of
the subject of water rights. and but
little knowledge of the general prin-
ciples of the law.
An impartial glance at the act of
Congress approved July 2G. 1866,
will prove to any candid mind that
"Neritas . has totally misconceived
or Intentionally misinterpreted both
the purpose and effect OF that act.
The act does not grant ne,r rights to
water, Dut confirms existing ones
rights which have "vested and ac-
crued." The act does not grant. nor
does it purport to grant, an usufruct
in water, but simply recognizes
rights to the use of water when
ever by priority of possession such
rights have "vested and accrued"
under the "local customs, laws and
decisions of the courts"
1t is scarcely necessary to direct
the attention of the Intelligent reader
to the patent fact that it is only
where by the ''customs, laws and
decisions of the courts" the rights TO
the use of water are ''recognized and
acknowledged that the possessors
and owners of such vested rights are
to ''be maintained and protected in
the same" Now if by the laws and
decisions of this State Vansickle had
vested rights to the use of water, and
if by the act of Congress the court
was enjoinedt to maintain tn ose rights,
by what authority did the court take
these vested" rights away and give
them to Haines? Can it be doubted
that if the law of ''priority of pos
session" existed in this State at the
time Vansickle made his diversion,
and continuously since then, that the
court erred in denying him that
which he held by a priority OF
more than ten years? If under the
act the court could not maintain
and protect" Vansickle in his prior
possession, it could maintain and
protect no one, and the act itself be-
comes a nullity so far as it relates to
vested rights" acquired under the
local laws of this State.
Furthermore: IF by the customs,
laws and decisions of the courts of
this State the right to water by prior
ity of appropriation was notacknOwl-
edged, then it follows that the law Of
Congress has no application what
ever to this State, for the acknowl-
edgment of such rights by the local
authorities is the express and only
condition upon which the act is to
take effect. But in this ease the
court denies the doctrine of appro-
priation. It follows, therefore, that
the act of Congress can protect no
me-, no matter when his title ac-
crued, 50 long as the decision
stands as the acknowledged law Of
the State.
But granting the utterly false posi-
ton of ':Veritas' to be truth, it must
be a proud reflection that the ruin
wantonly wrought by the decision is
not q3ite uuirersal. 1t must likewise
be consoling to the early settlers