New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-04
STATE FIGHTING STATE.
A SUIT OF GREAT IMPORTANCE BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT
FROM DIVERTING THE WATER OF
THE ARKANSAS RIVER.

THE ARKANSAS RIVER.
Washington, Nov. 3.-The answer of the state
of Colorado in the suit of the State of Kansas
against Colorado for the restriction Of the use
of the waters of the Arkansas River by the lat
/ ter State was filed in the United States Supreme
/ Court to-day. In general, all the allegations
of the bill of complaint denied. and it is
set forth that the appropriations of water COM
planned of were made in accordance with and
+ in reliance upon the doctrine respecting the APP
| preparation of the water of the natural stream
| for beneficial uses which by usage and custom
prevailed in the arid region of the United States
! at the time of said appropriations, and which.
| 6y the recognition and approval of the United
states, has at all times been the law applicable
| to the public lands in said arid region"
1t is urged that the people of Kansas have
| themselves recognized the necessity of the use
| of the water of the stream for the purpose of
irrigation by so using the water themselves.
The suit Of Kansas against Colorado is one of
the most important brought before the United
States Supreme Court in many years. Although
less sensational and not attracting such wide
spread attention. it is regarded III quarters
as even more important than the insuar test suits.
for it involves the relations between States and
OF the States to the federal government, and thus
goes to the foundation of the organic law. The
court is asked to decide whether the rights OF
tending States are to be determined according to
the rules applying 10 contests between individual
citizens, whether the principle of State
eregnty puts them out Of the Supreme Courts
jurisdiction.
About two years ago Kansas fled bill in equity
in the Supreme Court asking that Colorado be en-
Joined from diverting the waters of the Arkansas
River. This river rises in the Rocky Mountains.
in Colorado, and after flowing nearly three hun
dred miles through that State enters Kansas. The
melting the mountains gives the river a
great volume from early spring until August the
normal flow being than hundred and
twenty thousand cubic feet minute for nearly
the entire year. In Kansas this great stream runs
for upward Of three hundred miles through a val
ley of about two and half million acres, In which
the usual rainfall is insufficient provide moisture
for crops wells and cattle In this valley live nifty
thousand farmers and the towns along the river
banks have about the same numbe- Of inhabitants.
all largely dependent on the waters of the Arkan
sas River. The preservation of the full flow OF
the river is therefore OF the utmost Importance
to the people of the region and to the prosperity
of the State OF Kansas.
Irrigation is at the bottom Of the rouole-
Colorado has largely diverted the waters OF the
river 10 her farms. and intends. it is said 10
divert much larger quantity in future. 50 the
bill filed by Kansas asks for a decree enJoihlns
Colorado from granting any license or authollS
70 any person firm corporation for the diNe'S'o
OF any of the water of the Arkansas River ana
from granting to any one the right 70 enlarge any
canal or ditch now in use. or TO build DINERS anu
also restraining Colorado herself from constr u''s
irrigation canals or bitches
To this bill Colorado in october or last year
entered a demurrer largely on technical grounds,
among which were the statements that the tactS
as set forth did not constitute a controversy De
tween Kansas ana CoioraGo h S'5 5ispi1ta and that
Kansas is seeking 10 maintain a sun cid
1sh I ml ~ u sni, for This purpose Colorado
uIes ~ 20 - MAJ sbs has done in regard
Irrigation was authorized by acts Of congress ana
that her constitution. under which the right 10
divert the waters OF the Arkansas River ana , It's
tributaries from their natural chaih.a no %
n9n Gitca ag55b %
overraled. Chef justice Fuller delivering me oPin-
ion on the authority or the GeGsiqn n 1Ie ~ Vs
TeTr1fIin The sewage Of Chicago to now into
he Deepisinss River and thence into the Missis-
sippi. il being alleged that the water supply OF
The court in hat case ruled that the mere fact
that the state had 70 mar yoI nfTs urd
ton of the Supreme Court. which might DE IN
@ Stfing - as it we're said the Chief Justice. in
oyerrung the demurrer of Colorado as an inteir-
FEDERAL law state law and international law. and
we are ,ec6nca agmsons made BY the demGrrer
Their. contended that as SOVEREIGN ana lndGP EN-
dent State. she is justified If her geographical
judgment in consuming Tor oenenca! pI ifbst bn
Use OF or ~, sbe oHcunies toward Kansas the
esrb cher But" he said If a State Of this
T.rion deprives another State of its rights In a
naviea BILE stream and Congress has not regulated
The subject as no treaty can be made between
them how is the matter 10 be adiusted?' The de
murrer. therefore. was oyerruled ana the case
assigned for argument on its merits.
Kansas asserts that she has been deprived OF TIC
stroved and citizens injured in their health and
comfort. She puts herself in the position OF an
individual riparian and inVokeS the common
law rule that owners of lands on the banks OF a
river are entitled to continual now OF the
stream While admitting that this rule has been
modified in the Western states so that flowing
water may be taken for mining purposes and 10
reclaim arid lands she that such modification