Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1902-03-18
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Synopsis Of Opinion in the CeIe-
brated Irrigation Suit.
WHY CASE WAS REMANDED.

The full text of the United States
supreme courts opinion in the Ele-
phant Butte dam case has come to
hand. Justice Harlan said:
without considering the merits OF
the case the decree must be reversed.
and the cause remanded to the gu
preme court of New Mexico with direc-
tions to reverse the decree of the dis
trict court and to remand the case
with direction to. grant leave to both
sides to adduce further evidence"
The three errors charged to the ter.
ritorial courts were: Setting the cause
for final hearing at a date so early as
the first day of November, 1899; the
denial Of the motion made on behalf
of the Hritea States on the 17thS OF
October, 1899, to extend the time for
final hearing to February s, 1900; the
order denying the motion for new trial
made after the facts were found but
before final decree, for a rehearing. the
government having represented itself
unable to secure all required evidence
during the time allowed, and claiming
to have secured new and important ev.
idence impossible of attainment at the
date of trial.
"In the present case," says the opin-
ion, lit is quite clear that the record
does not contain evidence of ma
terial character, and that the absence
of such evidence is due to the action OF
the trial court in not giving sufficient
time 70 the government to prepare its
case
"The inquiry which this court direct
ed to be made. namely. whether the
intended acts of the defendants in the
Of Ian n mr. n q n
priating the waters of the Rio Grande
would substantially diminish the navi-
gability of that stream within the linn
its of present navigability was not only
of great importance, but was one that
could not properly be made and con-
cluded within the time ordinarily re-
uuired for the preparation of an equity
cause of final hearing. We think that
the district court, upon the showing
made by the government, might well
have granted the motion to postpone
the final hearing to a date later than
that fixed. We make the same obser-
vation in reference to a motion Tor
rehearing in respect of the facts to be
specially found, supported by afhdavits
as to newly discovered evidence, and
made before the final decree was en-
tered. The evidence set forth in those
affidavits, ii it had been brought before
the court, would, we think, have ma
terially strengthened the case OF the
United States"
The opinion concludes: I'VE are
the better satisfied with this disposi-
tion (the remanding) of the case be-
cause the question presented may IN
volve rights secured by treaties con-
cluded between this country and the
republic OF Mexico. AS the latter coun-
try cannot be Indifferent to the result
of this litigation and is not party to
the record the court ought not to de-
termine the important question before
us in the absence of material evidence,
which we are not at liberty upon this
record to doubt would be in the record
but for the somewhat precipitate ac-
ton of the trial court
Justice Gray and Justice Mckenna
did not sit in the case and Justice
Brewer and Justice Shiras dissented
against the decision to remand the
cause