The Florence tribune., 1899-02-18
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
Farmers Need Not Purchase the Privilege
 of Buying Water.
IFrom the Phoenix Republlean.l

rendered perhaps the most important l judgement in it's effect upon the farm
 CTS of this valley that was ever
 issued from court of this county. It l involved question which had ire
 quently been discussed, but which had
 never been raised for arbitrament.
 The case was that of Henry k. Slos-
 ser, on the part of the Maricopa County
 Farmers Cooperative and Protective
 association, against the Salt River Val
 ley Canal company. The object
 sought was to determine the legality
 of charges by the canal company for
 water rights in addition to the charges
 for the water itself in cases in which
 the users were not shareholders in the canal. The situation out of which the litigation grew was this: Many of the farmers had settled along the canal and some, indeed, had occupied their lands before the Salt River Valley canal was constructed. Some of them had obtained shares in the canal and many had not. These shares or rights. were afterward bought ID for purposes Of reorganization and that control of the property might be placed in certain persons. Thus the rights found their way into the hands of men who owned no land under the canals, while the men who owned the lands were with out water rights.
 There was succeeding arrange ment by which only those owning rights could obtain water. Others might receive it on an order from the owner of right who, as has been stated, was not the owner of the land, It had long been theory of the farm CTS that tlle water was intended for the land and that one who was without land could have neither use for nor right to water.
 This sentiment kept crys tallizing until the farmers association was formed for the purpose of bringing this suit. Mir. Slosser declined to rent a water right any longer, as he had been doing, and the canal company shut off the water. Almost two years ago Judge w. H. Stillwell filed petition for him for temporary injunction re- straining the company from depriving him of water. Judge Baker, who was then on the bench, declined to grant the writ notwithstanding the proffered bond. The case was of so great inn portance, Judge Baker said, that he would require 8 complete hearing in order that any order he might make would be ultimately found to be cor rect. Judge stiilwell made several st- tempts to get 8 hearing, which was promised at an early date upon the showing that the plaintiffs crops were in danger of destruction by the with holding of the water. The case was not reached during Judge Bakers term. It was brought up before Judge Truesdale, but before he could pro- 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. It was then taken before Judge Sloan, who heard it several months ago.
 His judgment just rendered is for the plaintiff. The victory for the farmers is so sweeping that every contention raised by Judge Stillwell is sustained. The defendant, skilHully represented by MT. B. F. Ainswo rth, contended in the first place that the suit was im- 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 plaintiff as entitled to the water, the defendant a common carrier entitled only to pay for it's services, and without right to exclude the plaintiff from his right to the water. The written decision is very long one. It's reading occupied twenty minutes and 1t 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 Arizona, aud while similar decisions had been reu- dered in Colorado. Montana and other states, the courts had been guided by the statelaws. In this.territory there Is no law affecting the matter at issue.
 An amusing thing marked the trial of the case. Several years ago, when the canal companies were engaged in a controversy over water in the suit of M. Wormser against the Salt River Valley Canal Company, Mir. Slosser 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, Wormser, should have his
 way. Judge Stillwell excayated this