Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-03-07
A MOST IMPORTANT APPEAL

A petition has been filed In the SUI
prome court OF Utah, for rehearlng OF
the case In which majority Of the
court rendered decision, in favor "
the Electric Power Company aud
against salt Lake city ana The several
canal companies Interested in the suit
The Desere, News pointed out some
features Of the majority opinion which
appeared contrary to certain funda-
mental principles, generally recognized
az governing the control as well as
beneficial use Of a source Of supply app
proprlated by public corporation for
public purposes We also contended
that the decision gave to the Electric
Power Company certain rights which
even IL they could be legally exercised
after completed secondary approprla-
lion, ought not 10 be conferred until
such appropriation had been perfected
II was argued on the other hand In
support of the majority opinion, that
the city could b. In no way injured by
H. because the Electric Power Com
nany was required to return the water
which II was permitted to divert for
mechanical purposes, into the citys
canal undlmInlshed In quality and
quantity That the city might be seri-
ously injured In consequence Of the de-
cslon We pointed out distinctly, and
also put the question what remedy
would the city have II the water was
not so returned. seeing that the Elec-
lric Company was in the hands Of a re.
ceiver and considered practically in
solvent This was not replied to but
only eyaded
There are very important interests
involved In the case which has been In
litigation The legal points relating to
them are clearly presented IN the petit
ton tor a rehearlng, the full text of
which VIII be found In this issue OF the
Deseret News, We commend II to all
fartles concerned This includes many
more people than the companies on.
gagged In the controversy. II isa mat
ter Of public moment.
u one company, figuring as d quasi.
public corporation, but which is operat.
ing for private profit, can Interfere
with The rights Of municipal corpora.
ton to the free flow of water into its
canal for public uses. and also use
the clty's canal for the discharge
Of the water thus diverted. without
having acquired the right by condem.
nation or a perfected appropriation
other similar companies may proceed in
me same fashion, And this might be
OF far-reaching application and inter.
'ere with rights and water systems in
many parts Of the State, resulting in
injury and loss and all, as II seems, In
violation of long established usaees and
principles
There are some features OF the de.
tision which appear to have been
FORMED without a perfect view OF un-
DERIVING facts and recognized rulings in
Sinilar cases. The appellants, 1t would
seem, ought to have the opportunity OF
presenting them to the further con
slderation of the court because OF the
Importance Of the issues thereof. The
decision has occasioned much disturb.
ance and strong feeling among the PEG.
pie dependent upon the water supply
from the Jordan river, and this has
extended to other parts OF the state
which may possibly be similarly affect
ed thereby.
The court appears to have overlooked
the principle Of prior appropriations
right, not only to the use OF the water
appropriated after II has passed
through his headgates and into his
canal, hut 70 the unobstructed flow OF
that water into his headgates and ca
nal. That becomes o vested right as
an essential part Of the appropriation.
II must not be interfered with by
subsequent appropriation, and certainly
not by a mere intending appropriation.
Taking into consideration the fact that
the city held the right to that unim.
peded flow for public uses, it's prior
rights appear 10 be very clear and posi-.
tive, and these are infrnged by the
terms OF the decision,
The petition enters into these and
other points that require further in
vestlgatlou, and respectfully but forcl.
bly, shows error In the opinion OF the
majority OF the court, IN assuming that
the Electric Power Company had COM
pleted an appropriation Tor secondary
use by forcihly SELLING upon the clty's
canal and insists that no rights,
whether TO the use of water or other
wise, can be acquired by trespass on
the rights OF others.
The higher courts Of our country are,
properly. hedged about with a dignity
and authority which should command
he respect Of lsw-abiding citizens
Their decisions are entitled 20 the rp.
card and reasonable submission Of all
larties involved They define the mean
Ing OF statutes and judgments They
alc the law until superseded They are
10 be recognized as the unbiased con-
illusions Of the judges. after thorough
investigation Of all sides of the Ques-
tons submitted But courts are falli-
bic and every citizen has the right TO