Arizona republican., 1899-02-12

sz.1sss11-111sz.s'
 might receive it on an order from the
 owner Of q right who, as has been
 stated, was not the owner of the land. 1 It had long been 9 theory of the farm 1 CTS that the wateI was intended for the l land and that enc who was without l land could have neither use for nor right to water.
 This sentiment kept crystallizing | until the farmers association Was i formed for the purpose of bringing this i suit. MT tSlOSseT. declined to rent Q water right any longer as he had been ! doing and the canal company shut CT i the water. Almost two years ago 1 Judge w. H. StiIlwen filed a petition 1 for him for Q temporary injunction re- l straining the company from dCpriving l him of water. Judge Baker, who was i then on the bench, declined to grant i the writ notwithstanding the prOmered i bond. The case was Of so great i'm portance, Judge Baker said. that he would require 9 complete hearing in order that any order he might make would be ultimately found to be cor rect. Judge StillwelI made several at tempts to get a hearing, which was promised at an early date upon the showing that the plaintiffs crops were in danger Of destruction 0y the with holding of the water The case was ! not reached during Judge Bakers term. It was brought ID before Judge Truesdale. but before he could pre- ceed with it he died. His successor, Judge Street, was disqualified by reason of the fact that he had assisted in the organization of the association upon whose part the suit was brought T--,I who heard it several months ago.
 His judgment just rendered is for the pI1lintiiffff The victory for the farmers is so sweeping that every contention raised by Judge StillWell is sustained The defendant. slzillfuIy represented by Mir. C. F. Ainswcrth, cOntended in the first place that the suit was inn proper from the beginning: that man. damus instead of injunction proceed ings should have been begun. This theory is swept aside by the judgment which thereby recognizes the r-aintiI as entitled to the water the defendant q commCn carrier entitled only to pay for it's services, and without right to exclude the plaintiff from his tight to the water. The written decision is 2 very long one Its reading occupied twenty minutes and il thoroughly re- viewed the controversy from it's origin.
 But little reference could be made to any former decision in the same kind Of suit, for as has been stated, none had ever been brought in A-izonl, and while sinila~ decisions had been rem Gered in Colorado Montana and other states, the courts had been guided Ey the state laws. Tn this territory there is no law affecting the matter ct issue.
 An amusing thing marked the trial of the case. Several years ago when the canal companies were engaged in 9 controversy over water in the suit of M. WOrmser against the Salt River Valley Canal Company, MT. Slcsser i was brought in, among Other witnesses ' by the defendant to prove that he was entitled to certain water which the de- fendant was bound to deliver to him, but would be prevented from doing if the plaintiff, WOrmseT, should have his way Judge Stillweu e1cavat6d this almost forgotten evidence to show that the defendants views regarding the right of users to water had changed. 1 An effort was made to exclude the tes- tim0ny offered at the former trial, but it was admitted.
 The litigation is by no means ended and will not likely be this side Of the supreme court of the United States. The interest on each side is almost in
 
 day should be sustained at last the water rights held by the company or by Cthe- persons would become nere ! certificates of ownership Of shares in ! the canal deprived of the income re- | ceived from farmers who are now re- ! quired to lease them. The farmers on the ether hand would be saved the con- | siderable annual expense of paying for | the privilege of buying water. The . winning cf the case involves also the ! securing of the injunction asked for. | The defendant will no doubt asE for . Q stay of execution, which will doubt . less be granted The farmers will al- . most certainly ask for water, making . tender at the same time and the com ! pany will be forced to be continually ! 1T motion and doing something in i court to stand of each new applicant . for water.
 Another effect cf the decision if sus- l tained, would be 9 withdrawal Of water ! fn seasons of shortage from the Ari- ! zcna and the other later canals. in . favor Of the Salt River Valley canal, | for the reason that the prior users . who would receive water in the order . 3f their priority live under the Salt . River Valley canal
 --s1r ----