The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-30
ST. PAUL WINS AGAIN
IN THE ACTION BROUGHT BY ST,
ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER
COMPANY
q. S. SUPREME COURT OPINION
RIGHT TO USE THE WATER OF
BALDWIN LAKE SETTLED
FOR ALL TIME.
HISTORY OF THE LONG FIGHT.
Corporation Attorney Markham and
Water Board officials Pleased
at the Result.
o. SUPREME COURT OPINION
HISTORY OF THE LONG FIGHT.

According to dispatches from Wash
ington the United States supreme court
yesterday rendered an opinion in the
Power company and the Minneapolis
Mill company against the City Of st.
Paul. The dispatch read as follows:
In the United States supreme court an
opinion rendered today in the case OF the
City of st. Paul, involving the right Of that
city to utilize the water of the Mississippi
river for domestic purposes, the opinion be-
ing handed down by Justice Peckham.
The action was instituted by the water
power company to test the validity of an act
of the Minnesota legislature authorizing the
city to divest portion of the water in face
of the fact that this company's charter grant
ed it the use, under the usages appertaining
to riparian rights, of all the water in the
river for its purposes.
Justice Peckham said in deciding the case
that the extent of the riparian rights of the
company was a matter of local law, and that
the states jurisdiction is exclusive. 1t was
also alleged in behalf of the St. Anthony
company that it's contract with the state
entered into with that company the
agreement was made subject, implicitly to
the diversion Of water by municipal corpora
lions and others of water for domestic pur-
poses The case came to this court on ap-
peal by the St. Anthony company from the
decision of the supreme court of Minnesota,
and the decision OF that court was upheld by
today's decision
Corporation Attorney Markham. who.
with his assistant, H. w. Phillips, ap-
peared before the United States SUI
preme court and argued the case last
October, was much pleased at the de-
cision of the court. He gave the fol-
lowing brief review of the case. In
1856 the legislature gave to the corpo-
ration who had commenced the suit
the right to put dams in the Mississippi
river at st. Anthony and develop water
power. III 1883 the city Of st. Paul was
authorized to purchase the water
works then. owned by private parties
and also to appoint board of water
commissioners. The commissioners
were authorized to secure a water sup
ply from various lakes and creeks and
III so doing were given authority to
give compensation for property taken.
A pumping station was located by the
commissioners at Baldwin's lake, the
outlet of which lake was Rice creek
which emptied into the Mississippi
river The water power companies
claimed riparian rights and also that
their contract with the state gave them
all the volume of the water and that
it could no be diverted by the water
board without compensation for the
same. The case was heard before
Judge CAVITY, then of the district court
in Minneapolis, in 1895. The conten-
ton of the city was that the water
board was branch of the city govern
ment and as such branch of the state
government, That the water used was
for public use and the city and the
board Of water commissioners was not
liable to the water power companies
for compensation. Judge CAVITY sus-
tanned the contention of the city and
dismissed both suits. The water power
companies appealed the case to the SUI
preme court of the state and in Feb
ruary, 1894, Judge Collins affirmed the
action of the lower court in the follow
ing decision:
The rights Of riparian owners on navigable
or public streams of water are subordinate
to public uses of such water, and the rights
of these appellants under their charters are
equally subordinate to such public uses.
The public have the right to apply the
waters of a navigable stream to public uses
without making compensation to riparian
owners.
The navigation of the stream is not the
only public use to which these public waters
may be applied. The right to draw from
them a supply of water for the ordinary use
of cities in their vicinity ia such a public
USE and this right is not affected by the fact
that consumers are charged for water used,
as a means Of paying the cost OF maintaining
the plant.
III IuuS ldhILS WdteT IIOu udNlSdDlo
streams or lakes for ordinary public uses,
the state is not controlled by the rules which
obtain between riparian owners as to the
diversion from. and return of water to, its
natural channels.
Certain provisions in respondents charter
relating to compensation for damages arising
out of the taking and diversion of water, con-
strued. Held that those provisions were not
intended to provide for compensation to ripar-
ian owners on navigable or public streams.
The water power companies sought
to review the case before the United
States supreme court on a writ Of error
or the ground that under the act of
1882 the water board could not divert
water from riparian owners without
compensation. The United States SUI
preme court, Mr.. Markham said, from
what he could make out of the decis-
ion, as telegraphed, held that the ex-
tent Of the riparian rights Of the COM
pany was matter Of state law and
that the states jurisdiction on this
point was exclusive.