The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-02-15
The Kansas River SteaI.

The late editorials in the Eagle followed
by the organization effected in this city
by the farmers of several of the counties
along the valley of the Arkansas for the
purpose of testing their rights TO the wa
tiers of the river, or rather the riparian
rights adhering to the river Itself, nave
resulted in awakening no little anxiety
upon the part of ditch projectors and irri-
gators in Colorado The Denver papers
have againIaken up the question IN de-
fensive way. The Denver Republican OF
Saturday contains the following editorial
which shows that there Is lively appre-
hension touching the real status. OF the
case and the rights involved. The argu-
ments of the Republican do not meet the
facts presented by the Eagle. nor does IT
attempt to do so. When il comes to state
sovereignty Colorado has no more rights
than Kansas, nor can Colorado acquire
rights at the expense of prior ones held
by Kansas. The Republican says:
Some farmers in southwestern Kansas
are organizing 20 resist the diversion OF
water for irrigation in Colorado from the
Arkansas river. They claim that thei5
that the federal courts have power 10
compel the Colorado people TO let the wa
ter remain in the river until II mas cross
ed the boundary of this state.
No one can speak with certainty con-
corning what a federal court VIII DO IN
a case OF that kind. Federal courts are
prone TO encroach upon state preroS-
atives, and it may be that they Wouid
hold that the farmers of Colorado have no
right to withdraw water from the Ar
kansas and apply it TO the reclamation or
their land If thereby the volume OF the
river in Kansas would be reduced
But if any federal judge should render
such a decision il would encroach upon
! the prerogatives of the state and inter-
fere with the rights which Coioraoo mas
conferred upon its citizens. Evidently the
Kansas farmers who are seeking 10 re-
strict irrigation in this state place very
poor estimate upon the rights of Colo
RADIO, and especially its right TO govern
the distribution of the water or Its
streams. They forget or ignore the fact
that the constitution of Colorado declares
that the unappropriated water Of the
streams of this state belong TO the peo-
pie.
1t is admitted that the national govern
ment has a certain control over naviga-
BILE streams, and probably the hopes or
! the Kansas farmers are based in meas
ure upon the existence of this authority.
But the control which congress has over
navigable streams springs from its right
to regulate commerce between the states.
In order that a stream may come within
the Jurisdiction of congress, II must be
a highway of commerce, and IT must be
so at the point where the control is 10 be
exercised.
The doctrine of state sovereignty is not
in good repute. 1t met with a severe re-
verse in consequence of the war and the
overthrow of the Southern Confederacy.
But nevertheless, although an eXtraVa-
CANT assertion of state rights, to the ex-
| tent of notification or secession, was
justly condemned, the states have certain
rights and they are recognized by the
courts. Colorado in relation TO Kansas
is as Independent as though an ocean
| rolled between them and they were under
distinct national governments.
The Arkansas river rises within the lin
its of this state. At no point in COLORADO
is it navigable. AS Kansas river IL be-
gins Immediately east of the Colorado line.
At that point the jurisdiction of Kan
SaS attaches. The authority of that state
does not extend an inch farther toward
the west No law of Kansas has any po-
tency within the limits of this state eX-
cept what may be granted through the
courtesy of our state government. No
citizen of Kansas can acquire any right
in the waters of the river before it crosses
the boundary except what may be con-
ferred by Colorado laws.
Kansas can not help it's citizens who
complain of what is done within the limits
of Colorado in accordance with Colorado
laws. Kansas farmers must therefore
show that the laws of Colorado are nuga-
tory in respect to this right of division
or go without redress. But this can not
be done without showing that they con-
fiict with the constitution of the United
states. mat in turn is impossible because
not only has the constitution of Colorado,
with its provisions concerning the appro-
baton of water, been accepted by the ma
tional government, but no authority over
an unnavigable stream is conferred upon
congress by the national constitution.
Furthermore, even If congress had au-
thority to declare that the people of Colo
RADIO should not divert the waters of the
Arkansas TO the injury of the citizens of
another state. the power has never yet
been exercised 1t is difficult to believe
that any federal court would usurp the
place of congress in such matter, and
prohibit that upon which congress itself
has placed no prohibition.