Arizona republican., 1902-04-27
GATES ARE SACRED
Judge Kent's Decision in the Cases
Against Water Users.

Judge Kent yesterday announced
decision in the cases of the Maricopa
Caanl company VS. NJ Gould Ell al, and
the Salt River Valley Canal company
Us. Z. Hargais, perpetuating a tenn
pOrary injunction, or rather refusing to
vacate the temporary order which had
been granted against the defendants to
restrain them from cutting or breaking
the gates of the plaintiffs canals, or
otherwise interfering with the proper
ty of the plaintiffs.
The defendant demurred to the COM
plant and also filed cross bill to
which the plaintiffs demurred. The
| court declined to adjudicate the differ
ences betweee~the plaintiffs and de-
PENDANTS, or TO define any of the rights
of the former except to control its
propeiSy. The court said:
Whether the defendants have or have
not a right to the use of the water
from prior appropriation. use, or under
any other claim, it is clear to me that
they have no right whatever to enter
upon the canal, break or otherwise in
terfere with the headgates, or attempt
| in the canal. or to interfere with the
canal cOmpany'S control and manage
| ment thereof; and this is equally true
whether they be stockholders, water
| right owners, or the defendants in this
action. To hold otherwise. or to allow
each user of water to be the judge, for
himself. of when and how he may use
and divert water carried in a canal
and how much water he should use,
and to exercise such judgment by
breaking open or opening this or that
headgate in the canal, in opposition to
| the canal company's management,
would be productive of such confusion,
waste, ill-feeling. and probable violence
as to make it impossible for the court
to sanction it, on the ground of public
| policy, if on no other ground. The
mere statement of any such general
| control, or rather want of control, in
the management and distribution of
water, is sufficient to show how inn
practicable it would be.
The most serious question and one
to which L have given especial atten-
ton, is the question raised by the
cross-bill of the defendants. In this
cross-bill the defendants set forth fully
the history of the water situation in
this valley, the different canals, theii
| incorporation their methods of distri-
| button of water, the control exercised
| by them, the matter of ''water-rights
so called, the use and occupation by
the defendants for long years past OF
! their lands. how the water was origin
ally obtained by, and furnished to
them, the present method, the depriva-
ton Of their rights by the canal COM
panies, their demand upon the com
panieS for water and tender of pay
ment therefor, and the refusal of thu
canal companies to furnish them will
water unless the defendants would
purchase water-right deeds, and tn
need of water for their lands. and tn,
inevitable destruction of their crop!
and the value of their land unless
water should be supplied them by TIL
canal companies; and they pray tina
the various canal companies in tn
valley, and every water user be mad
parties TO this action, and that q com
mission be appointed by the court t
take testimony, so that in this action
there may be a full adjudication ant
determination of all the rights t
water of every nature, in the valley.
| With. as l believe, Il knowledge o
what great and comprehensive un
edrtaling such a step would mean,
have nevertheless come to realize tina
in the end it would mean a saving o
labor, in that if these various interest
could be properly brought together i
this action and the various rights O
all parties determined. it would be tn
means of disposing of many question
already in litigation in this court, an
undetermined, and might, and prob
ably would, prevent the necessity Q
bringing many other actions yet I'm
: born, and. above all, would be mos
desirable for the interests of the com
munity. Such u step. however, whe
taken, must not be taken solely be
cause the question is one of import
/ ance; it must be taken legally, an