Arizona weekly citizen. [volume] (Tucson, Ariz) 1880-1901, 1891-12-05
TRANSFERABLE POINTS.
Judge Bakers Great Bubbles
RuthleSsly Pricked.
The Wat r Ques.i ION AuswsrsG-Nou
Ta-nayers' Privilege ofIVot-
i-s Bonds The 7 est Oath.

Judge Wright was at the opera house
last night. He was met there by large
house of the more thinking class of
voters. Many ladies were also pres
ent.
For man whose argument had been
''annihiiated' he placed some very strong
IDEAS on the subject at hand. He WIS
not tianked, about on the stage 0y some
ten or dozer lawers but very soou il
was manifest that he was amply able to
take care OF himself and his cause
The test 10 Tia was first touched upon.
The Idaho lower house democratic
was against the test oath. 1t was shown,
however, that the Mormons of Utah were
hopeless of statehood for themselves,
and should Idaho become a state with
out restrictions on the Mormon element
they would flock to the adjacent state,
and soon overrun it. The test oath was
placed in the Idaho constitution.
The speaker declared the Mormons to
represent the balance OF power in Arlzo-
Ma today. They could dictate as at the
constitutional convention, that there
should not be a syllable against polyg-
amy. The judge said that he believed
that IN ten years the Mormons would
control the state, the legislature and the
courts land then Gcd help the Gentiles."
The rain Which, falls on the just and
the unjust is altogether too infrequent
for Arizona, hence the need of lrriga- |
tion. The constitution makers saw
the conditions, viz: land without
limit; water with limit. That for per-
nanent wealth aud prosperity land must
be reclaimed by irrigation. Colorado |
made large appropriation and sent a
commission of a farmer, banker and |
lawyer to travel through the western |
states 10 study irrigation and report in
two years.
Judge Baker said in so many words |
that the Colorado constitution said that |
water should be sold. That the Wheeler |
case when decided expressed in so many |
words that water could be sold. To |
SHOW that water Cannot be sold the con-
stitution of Colorado YRS quoted:
1.-The water of every natural stream,
not heretofore appropriated, is hereby |
declared to be the property OF the public,
and the same Is dedicated to the use of |
the people Of the state"
From the Wheeler case decision was
quoted:
"But giving these rights all due sig
nincance l cannot consent to the propo-
sltion that the carrier becomes pro-
prietor of the water diverted
and this body the constitutional con-
ventIonI in its wisdom, ordained that the
ownership of the water should remain
in the public, with a perpetual right to
its use, free OF charge, in the people"
Under this law what Is an appropria-
ton?
l. 1t is to divert the water.
2. 1t Is to carry the water diverted.
). 1t is to apply the water carried to
a beneficial use.
The ditch company diverts and car
ries 1t; the farmer applies 1t. 1t is
therefore common undertaking. Both
must unite. Ene moment one fails,
both fail.
The ditch company gives the farmer
as little water as possible; the farmer
makes as much of Inc water as can be
made.
In regard to Judge Bakers theory
that the state is the people; the people
are the state: The state owns The
waters of the Colorado river: Suppose
get my title from the people. Every
mar, WGnan and child in Arizona tigns
the deco. Would 1t not be good deed !?
Certainly. The state is the peopl.; the
people ara the state. My title Is from
the people.
Iutgo Sloan would say the title is in
tbs state, |. c, Ia Its corporate or col
lective capacity.
answer you are wrong there. Did
not Judge Buker say the people were
Lhe state.
Andsrson's law dictionary, 1891, quotes
as defuition for the word state"
a. he people do not constitute the
state though It exists for their benefit.
/ people without a Government is not |
"a state. The peopie are only an elemen,
Of the state. When : they eff
feet political organization and establish
government n state arises. >
Ii this organization and government
what is called sovereign pswer' rests |
Uuder American orgaCIzation this
power is distributed among the several
departments, each welding the portion
vested IN If, as we'll against the body of
the people us against iudlvidualo"
But the state does not convert its
property IN this way, any more than 1t
pays its debts in this way.
Ton Cooley, heretofore considered
the ceatest constitutional lawyer, de
clare (p. Z35l:
"Tle legislative power of the state
controls and disposes Of the property OF
the State
Then il follows that the title TO every ,
drop of water in the state is within the
control Of the legislature, and it can
cow ~ it 10 whomsoever ard whereso-
ever it secs fit.
Is this wise? Is it safe!
But this is not all. The constitution
itself provides for the convey ance Of the
title:
SEC 4. The right of individuals or i
to construct reservoirs and '
impound and appropriate the surplus
and fl BOD waters in this state, for sale.
rental, domestic, stock, or any beneficial
purpose, shall never be denied
The word Inappropriate" and sim
pound" mean what:
To "impound" water is to hold it,
Water in ditch is impounded. =
To Inappropriate" water is to take i, ]
from the source and convey it. =
The title is in the state. According .
to the constitution the person or corpor
alton may appropriate it. For what :
purpose? To sell it. Does not the con
'ttution say 1.-The right = Z = for sale
= shall never be denied.
This means that the ditca owner, by -
he mere act OF diverting sand carrying 10
he Mater has acnuirad title To II II | aI