The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-02-28

any Of them would think of making
such decree. ISIS
Speaking further Judge johnson. de-
clared that in his district the court de-
crees had forever settled the question
Of water rights. according. as the evil
dence showed, to the rights of prior ap-
propriators, and that these litigated
matters are as we'll adjudicated as are
the land titles. He maintained also
that all such DEGREES were certain and
definite. Judge Johnson added that .
plan of establishing a record Of such
riehts as had not been adjudicated by
permitting water users to prove up as
they do in land entries might be effect
i've. As to remedying the evils of in-
perfect methods of distributing water
the Judge said that the legislature
could provide the relief necessary.
Disagreeing With the Judge.
Farmer Cropper of AIillard spoke
with emphasis when he said he took is
sue with Judge Johnson. The delegate
cited tho conditions of the irriga tors
along the lower Sewer river. where he
said their rights had not been adiudi-
Gated. although the judge had stated
all the rights along the river clear to
its head had been decreed to GER
tainJy. He remarked that his constit-
uents are suffering from just such de-
cisions as have been rendered by Judge
Johnson and Judge McCarty. and the
irrigatOrs of Willard county must go
into court before another judge to have
their rights defined
In closing. Mr.. Chopper declared amid
applause that the farmers along the
Sewer wanted a stop put to apparent
ly unnecessary litigation resulting from
uncertain DEGREES of courts and A
quietus put upon the feeling of law
yers.
Attorney Dan Harrington of Salt
Lake disagreed with both the state en-
gineer and the judge Of the Seventh
district as to the need of any further
legislation. He favored the plan OF in
cooperating all Of the canals located
wholly within one county i'm one COM
pany and put into the control of one
head for distributing the water. As 10
the adjudication of rights, Mr. Har-
rington declared that whenever a new
appropriation appears the litigation is
renewed.
Mr.. Eldridge Astonished.
Alma EIdredge of Summit expressed
his establishment at the statements of
Judge Johnson. He had heard many
termed an adjudication of water rights
is really only a temporary settlement
of the controversies. To him it seemed
a certainty that those who believed the
end of their lawsuits had been reached
would again have to go into court to
defend their titles
Mr.. Eldredge then launched into a
lengthy speech telling about the big
suit which will involve every water
taker along the Weber river system.
He pointed out that the shortage of
water supply for this season will be
due to a scarcity of snowfall in the
mountains and offered several sugges-
tons as to how the sources of supply
could be kept well filled when there
is plenty of snowfall for the coming
irrigating seasons.
The slow progress that was making
toward a conclusion of the conventions
work prompted Judge Booth of Provo
to offer a motion. reciting that. since
all of the important matters had been
referred to either the committee on res
olutions or the committee on organiza
ton of the proposed state association
of irrigatOrs the convention adjourn
until April 2.
George Gardiner of Salt Lake favored
Judge Booths motion on the ground
that if such a proposition did not carry
the convention would be in session an
other month. but Heber BenniOn OPP
posed the motion because he had come
to hear the long discussions.
Judge Booths motion was tabled and
then the convention recessed until this
morning on the understanding that a
greater effort would be made to force
progress to a conclusion.