Arizona republican., 1902-09-07

the only one consistent with the policy of the government.
 The latest act of congress, the New lands act, contemplates, and we are governed by it, that stored or other water impounded or developed under its provisions, shall be used only by those acquiring the right to do so un- der the act, and the right shall be in- separable from the land. Thus we have defined the status of the land owner. who has a right to the use of water.
 What acts constitute an appropria- ton of water are held to be:
 1st The diversion of the water from the source of supply.
 2d. The conveyance of the water to the place of use, and
 3d. The actual use.
 These different acts may be, and in practice in this valley are most fre- quently, performed by two different per sons that is. the diversion and carrying or conveyance is by one Gan association or a corporation usually). and the ac- tual use by another (the land owner or occupant). The land owner or occupant is the appropriator, for by the law, he is the only one who can appropriate water, and the carrier is merely an agency adopted by the appropriator to effect the appropriation. And thus we define the status of the carrier of the water.
 The relation of the one, the appro- priator. to the other, the carrier must arise by contract, express or implied. Or if the term may be used to promote brevity of eXpression-by estoppel.
 Now it is probable that of these prop ositions none will remain undisputed by some or others of those whose in- terests are, or seem to be. variant. One of the first. and in any event. the most essential thing to be done. is the settlement of these disputed questions and if success is to be attained it IS submitted they must be settled to be as they are here stated.
 [ To settle them by simple agreement is impra cticabl That involves una- nimity of all the disputants, which is hopeless; and it seems that it would be difficult to frame an agreement to be so definitive of the rights of all the parties as to be satisfactory to either the government or to the parties them selves. Nothing short of a decree of a court of competent Jurisdiction will suffice, for that alone can be either definitive or final.
 A very casual consideration of the Hansbrough- Newlands act will make apparent the absolute necessity for this settlement. 1 is sine qua non. It may be assumed that, from motives of self interest-which in any case are always the safest to which to appeal-if from no others, the apprCpriators and the carriers of water in this valley arc urgent for a prompt, definite and fina adjustment of these questions. It ough not to be assumed that the settlement should be unfair, or disturb vested rights, nor should such an attempt bt considered, for that would defea rather than promote the object in view
 The variant interests may, at large be divided into two classes: that is the water users and the carriers, wher' the user is not also the carrier. Ther' will have to be settled among the on class. the users, the question of tim and extent of appropriation of water and as to them, the fact tha, the righ to use water is appurtenant to the lan' tor which it was appro priated Amongst those of the other class, tn