The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1889-04-20
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
Appropriation. Not Riparian Rights,
the Law Of Nevada Reversal Of the
Case Of Vansiekle vs.. Haines

This morning the Supreme Court
rendered a decision which probably
carries with it more consequence than
any heretofore rendered in this State
Tae case was that of the Reno Reduce
ton Works rs. {. G. Stevenson ct al,
better known as the Reno water case.
The Court decided squarely in favor
of the State, overriding Nansickle vs.
Haiues, which has been the law since
1872, and declaring that rights of wa
ter for beneficial use in this State is to
be determined by the law of prior
appropriation. The Common Law doc
trine of Riparian Ownership is de-
clared unsuitable To our conditions.
Attorney General Alexander. X. II.
Lindsay and Judge Thomas II. Wells
were the attorneys for the State, and
r. 5. Messick for the corporation
Carson Tribune.
Commenting on the above, the En-
terprise says:
| n the above entitled case plaintiff
relied solely upon riparian ownership,
aud upon the decision of the Supreme
Court of Nevada in the case of Van
sickle Is. HAines, uphoiding that doc
trine. The case vas tried tefore Judge
Biaelow In Reno some time ago, who
returned a yeriict for plaintiff, and
claimed in his decision that If the Su-
premc Court OF TINS State intended To
reverse the decision in Vansickle
against Huinee by their decision in
Jones vs.. Adams IL deyOlyed upon the
Court 10 do so IN Il manner plum
enough tor ordinary mOrtais 10 UNDER
stand Bgelow's words, while no. AS
plain as tue foregoing meant the same
thing.
The opinion Of the Court in Van
sickle ys. Hates vas written by Judge
j. +. Lewis aud was eoucurred IN by
Judge. Whitman aud Garber--form-
lng trio of Judicial hons. Judge
Lewis never before bestowed so much
study. research and care as he did in
this cuse. IL took the lay from Ed
ward S time in England and trailed ito
date ot writing. He fortified himself
by consultation with lis bosom friend.
W. Z. +. Deal. and with h.s big
braiDed associates, and he built a
structure that j. pointed al to-day rs
judicial GiDrdtuir-except lie taIiea
To take account o. the economic cOndi-
tions of the country II wnlct we live.
Water, IN some countries, Is n uuis-
ancee, IN others, il l. a jewel. We
have drain ditcues IN the East and II
rigatiug bitches II the West. Nc have
ripafians in the East and apprOpria-
tiuuists IN the West. Judge Lewis hyed
long enough 10 change lis mlDd on
this question aud witness the building
that once lopked 50 fautless Il shape
less mass like the yahorings al mind
dethroned.
In the case of Jones v. Adams the
Supreme Court spoke in 4 cowardly
manner. 1t failed TO state what part
OF the decision of Yansickle VS.. Haines
1t reversed Ii was an equiVocal de-
csion. The Court did not like to adj
nit il had once maintained a false
position If IL bad spoken plainly in
Jones VS.. Adams, II would never have
been called upon by the case Of Reno
Reduction Works VS.. State to explain
Whit it meant by its opinion IN Jones
y. Adams, aud the State would have
been saved much expense-brought
on by the false pride aud dignity of
the Court.
We understand that the Reno Re-
duction Works have some fair legal
points remaining To entitie them To
the full control of the water created
by their dam even under the law of
Appropriation; and the case ill prob
ablg 20 to the United States Supreme
Court