Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1898-01-31
THE INJUNCTION CASE !
Hon, Neill B. Field Arguing for
the Valley Farmers.
The Court Room Packed with Many
Interested People.
A Case OF Grea; Importance 10 Water
Rights in New Mexico.
oSK moRI rUsHEL VICTIM.

The hearing OF the injunction In the
case OF the Albuquerque Land & Irriga.
tlon company vs. Judge I. G. Gutierres,
was taken up before Judge Crumpaeker
this morning and the legal arguments
which commenced this morning. will
probably last Tor one or two days before
the last word has been said
Shortly after 10 O'Clock this forenoon
Hon. Nelll B. Field, who represents the
Rio Grande valley farmers in this contro.
versy. began an able aud exhaustive legal
argument. The intense and universal
interest 10 the outcome was manifested
by the presence OF hundreds Of farmers,
who drove In from their homes many
miles distant, as we'll as a large number
OF residents In the city.
When Mr. Field commenced his argu.
ment the court room. upstairs at the
court house, was crowded TO Its utmost
capacity.
Childers 4 Dobson and Judge Collier
were present as the legal representatives
Of the canal company.
Mr.. Field, in hisargument, maintained
that the unappropriated water Of streams
like the Rio Grande by the desert land
act passed by congress March 3, 1877,
must forever remain free 10 the appro.
priatlon Of all the people. He did not
question the right OF organizing q com.
pany or its right TO construct canal,
provided the company Is In position TO
serve the public as water carrier.
The Legislature might direct the con.
structiOn Of canal across private lands,
providing its purpose and use were 10 be
public. This was clearly Legislative
power. The legislature might also at
tach conditions TO these rights Of emf
nent domain, and whether these condi-
tions were complied with was a matter Of
judicial cognizance.
Before q corporation can exercise the
right OF eminent domain IL must show
that II Is such corporationand that II Is
capable Of serving the public as public
carrier Of water; and II 1t cannot 40
serve II has no right Of eminent domain.
Mr.. Field argued further that the legis-
lature had never attempted 10 grant any
water rights TO anybody but that the first
legislature and the last Legislature had
left these rights Just where they found
them. The only act that seemed 10 con-
fllct with this view was the act Of 1891
and counsel maintained that this act did
nothing more than establish rule OF
evidence In controversies arising as IA
water rights. II II intended TO grant
water rights then IL waa illegal because
II was contrary to the desert land act
which said that all water should remain
forever free to be appropriated by all the
people. II, on the other hand. IL wa'
merely police regulation or only In
tended 10 establish rule Of evidence Il
came clearly within the powers Of the
legislature.
Mr. Field read from the legislstlv,
act Of 1907 and also quoted some deci
sions to substantiate his position.
He declared II TO be an eternal monu
ment 10 the native people OF New Mex
leo that, while the court records OF Ari
zona, Colorado and California were full
OF cases arising out Of irrigation contrO
versies In recent years, in New Mexic,
there was only one case OF the kind tina
had been carried to the supreme cour
and the only one which the people cOul'
not settle among themselves.
A system Of irrigation which had en-
abled the people TO live in amicable rela
. tions for generations was not lightly +
be set aside even for modern American
progress and modern American methods
which would fill the courts with Law
suits arising from controversies over irri
cation matters.
Mr.. Field expects TO complete hi
a argument this afternoon and the attol
{ neys for the company will have their "a
a tomorrow.