The oasis., 1894-04-12
ri,ELAw.

| that settlers on the grant VIII nave
 full protection. should the claim be
 confirmed. Only those sections affect
 ing the points at issue need reproduc- tion here.
 Section II of the act of congress ap-
 proved March Sd, 1891, on page 923 of
 the supplement- to the revised statutes
 of the United States reads:
 Sec. II. That if in any case it shall
 appear that the lands or any part
 thereof decreed to any claimant under
 the provisions of this act shall have
 been sold or granted by the United
 States to any other person, such title
 from the United States to such other
 person shall remain valid notwith- standing such decree: and proof being made to to the satisfaction of said court of such sale or grant, and the
 value of the lands so sold or granted, such court shall render judgment in favor of such claimant against the
 United States for the reasonable value of said lands so sold or granted, exclusive of betterments. not exceed ing one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for such lands: and such judg- ment when found. shall be a charge upon the treasury of the, Jnited states.
 Now, surely, if language means any thing, the foregoing section of the law gives the settler whose land is patent- ed ample protection. The title to any patented land is valid, must be so rec ognized by the grantee securing con- firmation. and he must look to the general government for reimburse ment.
 But the point is raised that the sec tion above quoted does not protect appropriators and users of water, whose patented lands can and will be made worthless by the successful claimant shutting off the life giving fluid SD necessary for irrigation and cultivation. To this AIr. Peralta- reavis, in his statement, asserts that settlers are amply protected in their and use of water by the act of congress relating to the court of [ claims, approved March ,, 1887, which may be found in the same volume as the section above printed, on pages 559 ct seq. On page 559 the law reads. I
 Be it enacted, etc.
 That the court of claims shall have [ jurisdiction to hear and determine the { following matters:
 First. All claims founded upon the | of the United States or any law of congress, except for pen sions. or upon any regulation of an ex- ecutive department,0r upon any con- tract express or implied with the gov ernmcnt of the United States. or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated in cases net sounding in tort. in respect of which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United States, either in a court of law, equity or admiralty: if the United States were suable,
 Now in this regard the argument of the claimant is that he will have 9 valid claim against the United States for all waters appropriated previous to confirmation of the grant, for the reason that such appropriations have beenmade bg enactments of the terri torial legislature approved by act of and that consequently under that law his claim founded on law of congress, Co reimbursement for such water, is collectible against the United States in the court of claims. Again. the users of water were com pelied to make such use is q condition precedent Co acquisition of title to their land from the United States. If hat is not an implied contract with the United States, which WAS the sup posed owner of all the water, for the water 50 used, then must the doctrine lf imnlied contracts be rewritten. But