The Meeker herald., 1888-01-14
Tie Death Of if.,.isy.

\ decision WAS rendered In the State
Supreme Court Ia the ease uf Wheeler
W. the Northern Irrigation company
last week. whereby the ,ncrunchnc,, of
the water mpnUpblihis Will not b- tnl-f-
aicd any longer. From the Denver
News We rrpr.lurc the following his
tory oi the ease. which is OF interest la
sections where iriigating Ii necessary
The Northern Irrigation company, or
rs 1t Is commonly called, the English
company. constructed M Irrigation
canal. beginning In the Pl.i,. canon
and covering itJ.O'n acres. mor- or less.
oi arablr lands IN the counties oI Doug
ias ana Ara,.ai,o~. 'thr cntrtrt,-- ~as
l - -----. ..-s------ .s.. se- -~-s-.ss
turai development of Northern Colo
RADIO. Win an intelligent, Just and
/ liberal management the canal would
have Ind n most beneficial effect upon
the growth "f our farming interests.
hut such was no; III. policy OF the con-
pany. a claim Ia til. absolute owner
ship OF the water was set mp; ROYALTY
OF from sio To 50 per acre for the priv
ii.gc of using the water carried hy the
canal was demanded. AMI u contract -S-
acted Of purchasers whose inlIuitous
provisions found u parallel only In III.
land leases In Ireland. DR.. u. A..
Wheeler declined ,o pay til. royalty de
niandcd. aud refused Ia sign the cpn-
tract. ani ,rndcrc'l the annual rent Of
81. per acre. The company dcclincd
To receive II. aud refused To furnish
water. Dr. Wheeler brought suit by
mpniamus. In TIA. >upr.m. Court.
which wri, the court refused To allow
for wan, of original jurisdiction. Suit
was then begun In the District Court
before Judge Elliott, who, after ex-
haustiyc Argument, refused a. Issue the
writ on the ground TIM, the royalty de.
nanied WAS In Ia. nature of al AL
vance payment for water. n plea sp-.
ciously advanced by the ditch com
pan,'s ATTORNEYS. The ease was taken
on appeal to the snprcm. Court, aud on
Wednesday Judge Helm delivered the
opinion of that tribunal. reversing
Judge Ellint,'s opinion. and allowing
NV VIII
at length the Who'll. question Mt bar. is
an exhaustive one, and holds that the
ditch company Is only carrier Of
water; that the constitution recognizes
the right 10 transport water for hire:
that the diversion of water from
stream "ripcns into q valid arpropria-
ton only when the water is utilized hy
the consumer = that the constitution
orilnins that the ownership Of water
should remain IN the public, with per-
prtuil right Ia us. 1t free from chnrgc;r
that any att.mp, on the part of ditch
companies to abuse their privilege.
would "lay the foundations for judicial
interference: that all unreasonable
regulations or demands" must be- held
illcyal." that the demand Of 0pcr
acre Ms royalty. is illegal as well rs un-
reasonable and oppressive and that a
ditch company cannot collect frnm n
consumer $40. or any other sum for the
privilege of exercising his constitutional
right to use water Chief Justice
Beck. in concuriing opinion. held that
Wv hfiil'lhlN WV
were unreasonable and Illegal and
asserted that til. company could not
legally require payment OF the $40 per
acre. or Other sum. for u series Of years
in advance. whether IL be regarded "a
compensation or otherwise. ANY sum
charged for royalty or as bonus would
be unconstitutional"
The decision must ever remain bar
rier Of the people against the encroach-
ment for water monopolists. Its broad
views OF the intention of the trainers of
the constitution, Its soundncss Of rca-
soning. and its evident determination
to secure TO the people what their con-
stitution guarantees to them, will for
ever stamp 1T rs All opinion of the
highest merit.