The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1902-04-11
ONE VICTORY FOR KANSAS.
The Supreme Court Has Jurisdiction
in the Arkansas River Case.
In the Case OF the state Of Kansas Against
the State OF Colorado the Latter's De-
murrer Was Unanimously OverruIed
by the Court in Washington.

Washington, April The United
States supreme court. in an opinion de-
livered by Chief Justice Fuller to- day.
Overruled the demurrer OF the state of
Colorado IN the case Of the state of Kan
sas versus the state of Colorado The
case involves the right Of Colorado to ap-
propriate for irrigation purposes the
waters of the Arkansas river. which
Kansas sought by an original action to
restrain upon the ground that the stream
flows through Kansas and the people of
the latter state are injured by ColoradO's
appropriation of the water Colorado
contested the jurisdiction Of the court IN
/ the case and filed a demurrer. The chief
/ justice said that the case is one in which
the court can properly assume jurisdic-
ton. He said also that the action of the
court Overruling the demurrer was in
tended to be without prejudice, but was
taken because the importance of the case
Is such that it should not be decided
without full proof upon the questions set
up in the allegations Of damage made by
the state Of Kansas
Upon the point Of jurisdiction the
chief justice said: without subjecting
the bill to the minute criticism we think
its avermeDts sufficient to present the
question as to the power of one state Of
the union to wholly deprive another of
/ the benefit of water from a river rising
IL the former and, by nature, flowing
iutO and through the latter, and that,
therefore. this court, speskiug broadly
has jurisdiction
Regarding the demurrer, he said: t he
! general rule Is that the truth Of material
and relevant matters set forth with re-
quisite precision, are admitted by de.
murrer, but 10 a case of this magnitude.
involving questions Of so grave aud far
reaching Importance. it does not seem to
US wise to apply that rule, and we must
decli1e to do So
He then stated the averments of the
contention of the states of Kansas and
Colorado, concluding as follows:
Sitting. as 1t were, as an international
as we'll as a domestic court, we apply
federal law, state law and international
law, as the ezigencies of the particular
case may demand and we are unwilling
10 this case to proceed upon the mere
technical admissions made by demurrer
Nor do we regard it necessary, whatever
limperfectiOns a close analysis Of the
pending bill may disclose, to compel its
amendment at this stage of the itiga-
ton. We think the record should show
on proofs whether Colorado Is herself
actually threatening to wholly exhaust
the flow of the Arkansas river in Kansas.
whether what is described in the bill as
the 'underfiow' Is a subterranean stream
flowing in a known and defined channel
and not merely water PercOlating through
the strata below; whether certain per
sons, firms and corporations 10 Colorado
must be made parties therero; what
lands 10 Kansas are actually situated
upon the banks Of the river and what.
either in Colorado or Kansas. are abso
lutely dependent on water therefrom;
the extent of the watershed or the drain
age area of the Arkansas river; the posi-
bilities of the maintenance of a sustained
dow through the control Of food wa, ers;
10 short, that the circumstances, a vari-
alton 10 which might induce a court to
either grant, modify or deny the relief
sought or any part thereof. In view Of
the intricate questions arising upon the
record, we are constrained to forbesr
proceedings until all the facts are before
Us upon the evidence"
There was no dissenting opinion.
Water Instead of Milk in Cooking.