The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-08
DISPUTE BETWEEN STATES.
Court Wants More Facts I'm the Col
orado-Kansas Water Case.

WASHINGTON, April THE United
States Supreme Court in an opinion de-
livered by Chief Justice Fuller to-day over
ruled the demurrer of the State Of Colo
RADIO in the case of the State of Kansas vs.
the State Of Colorado. The case involves
the right of Colorado to appropriate for
purposes of irrigation the waters or the
Arkansas river. which Kansas sought by
an original action TO restrain. on the
ground that the stream flows through Kan
sas and the people of the latter State are
injured by Colorado's appropriation OF the
water. Colorado contested the jurisdic-
ton of the court in the case and filed
demurrer. The chief justice said the case
is one in which the court can properly as
sumo Jurisdiction. He said also that the
action of the court i'm overruing the de-
murrer was intended to be without preju-
dlce, put was taken because the import
ance OF the case is such that it should
not be decided without fun proof on the
questions set up in the allegations OF dam
ages made by the State of Kansas.
On the point OF jurisdiction the chief JUS
uce said: without subjecting the bill 10
minute criticism. we think it's averments
sufhclent to present the question as to the
power OF one State of the Union 10 wholly
deprive another OF the benefit OF water
from a river rising in the former and by
nature, flowing into and through the latter,
and that, therefore. this court speaking
broadly. had jurisdiction
Coming to the question of the demurrer,
ne SAID: THE general rule is that the
truth OF matter and relevant matters set
forth With requisite precision are ad
mltted by demurrer, but in case of this
magnitude, involving questions of so grave
and FAR reaching Importance, il does not
seem to us wise TO apply that rule and
we must decline 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 well as
a domestic tribunal. we apply federal law,
State law and international law, as the ex-
igencies of the particular case may demand
and we are unwilling in this case to pro-
coed on the mere technical admissions
made by demurrer.
Nor do we regard ii as necessary, what
ever imperfectiOns close analysis of the
pending bill may disclose. 10 compel its
amendment at this stage of the litigation.
We think the record should show on proofs
whether Colorado is herself actually
threatening to wholly exhaust the flow of
what is described in the bill as the 'un-
derfiow is subterranean stream flowing
in known and defined channel, and not
merely water percolating through the
strata below: whether certain persons
firms and corporations in Colorado must
be made parties thereto; what lands in
Kansas are actually situated on the
banks of the river and what either I'm
Colorado and Kansas are absolutely de-
pendent on water therefrom; the extent
of the watershed or the drainage area of
the Arkansas river; the possibilities of
the maintenance of a sustained flow
through the control of flood waters: in
short. the circumstances, a variation in
which might induce a court to either grant
modify or deny the relief sought or any
part thereof. In view of the intricate cues
lions arising on the record. we are con-
strained to forbear proceedings until all
the facts are before us on the evidence"
There was dissenting opinion.