The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-18

right to use a portion of those waters.
! They are confirmed by the irrigation
article in all that they own. There is
no "confiscation" or attempt at con-
i fiscation in the article. It would not
hold good in law if it were attempted.
No citizen can be deprived of life, lib
erty or property without due process Of
/ law: that is a national constitutional
| guaranty. But, as we have said, the
property right in water. of individuals
and companies. is only to the reasonable
use of that water. not to its absolute
| ownership.
The state at it's formation claims that
ownership. What is the state? 1t is the
whole people residing within the geo.
graphical boundaries of the state. They
as an organized commonwealth own
the water. But rights to its reasonable
use having been largely acquired by in
dividuals and companies. they are con-
firmed in those rights. The state does
not "confiscate'' or interfere with them
in any way.
| The waters of the state which are not
appropriated. will be under the regula-
and by the rules to be provided for by
law. Also the appropriation, distribu-
ton and diversion of the waters will
be under the supervision" of those Of
ficers and rules. The control. use and
distribution are not taken from any
body. our critical correspondent to the
contrary Notwithstanding. There will
be a supervisory authority, regulated
by law and subject to the decisions of
courts. but no confiscation or depriva-
ton of rights in any way whatever.
The agricultural professor says that
this confiscation and deprivation lis
intended; it is what the article was
drawn for. and it fills the bill exactly"
OF course. it must be so if he says so;
that is. in his own mind. He claims
to know not only that the article means
something that is not in it. but also
the purpose and intent of the trainers
of the article. But although he may
think his say so the end of controversy.
we happen to know that the intent and
purpose of the article were exactly the
reverse of what he says. and further,
the article itself proves this. for it
does not take anything from a water
user in Utah. either by way of right or
control. On the contrary. it establishes
and confirms such existing rights.
The only chaotic middle" we can
discover is in the mind of the gentle
man. who has conjured UP a lot of
water phantoms that have no exist
ence. What he sees in the article is not
there. He may have some knowledge
of agriculture and of irrigation, we do
not know about that: but he does not
appear to have much comprehension of
the meaning and bearing of language
and of law.
The provisions of the article are SIM
liar to those in the Colorado and Wy
oming constitutions. They are founded
on evident necessity. They will take
away no vested right. interfere with
no legal claim or control. but will es-
tablish a preservatory and supervisory
system. by which water rights will re-
ceive more complete recognition and
proof. each person and company will
retain and control all and no more
than lawfully belongs to them. and
irrigation means and methods will be
enlarged and improved. for the pros
perity of the state and the benefit of
the whole people