The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-09-15
KANsAs-CoLoRADO SUIT.
S. S. Ashbaugh Says This States Con
tentions Are Being Sustained.

Kansas City, Sept. 15.-S. S. Ash
baugh of Wichita, who is in charge OF
| the Kansas interests in the famous
| Kansas Colorado irrigation suit, was
| in town last night, and declares that
| the contentious of the Kansas counsel
are being sustained to surprising
extent by the testimony which is now
being taken before Judge w. F. Rich
ardson, of Roswell, N. M, the com
missioner appointed by the United
| States supreme court for that purpose.
Mr.. Ashbaugh as been associated with
| the case ever since it was started, and,
| in fact. made a trip to washington
! over five years ago to interest the Unit
ed States department of justice In the
| case, before it was taken up by the
state of Kansas. The present suit was
started when Attorney General God
ard was in office. and E. F. Ware, now
commissioner of pensions. was asso-
ciated with Mr.. Ashbaugh in its prose-
cution. Attorney General Coleman
now of course, has general charge of
the case, but Mr.. Ashbaugh is the
| chief of counsel for the state of Kan
sas, and has the assistance of N h
Loomis, of Topeka, and Fred Dumont
| Smith, of KinSley.
| 1--WE are making excellent progress
in the case" said Mr. Ashbaugh last
night. I'VE have finished our taking
| of testimony in Colorado, and are
| taking a vacation this week in order
to allow our stenographer to catch up
| with his work. He had notes on the
testimony for three weeks past which
had not been transcribed, and we
/ thought that it was best to take no
| further chances on that. have been
at Topeka this week looking up rec
| ords in the case. Next week we go to
| Garden City, and shall be there prob
| ably a week or more. Our case will
| be closed there.
| I'VE have definitely proved four things
so far The first is that we once had a
| VII n a 0nnfinl1OIrQ flow
| ing stream, except in extremely dry
| times, and one that furnished an I'M
derfiow to the whole valley of the Ar
kansas in the state of Kansas.
| "Second-That the river is gone and
the underfiow lowered from two to four
feet.
..Third-That the loss of the river and
the lowering of the undertook has
caused a loss in the productiVeneSS of
the valley.
"Fourth-That Colorado has taken
| that water.
these four points pretty thoroughly es-
tablishes our case. The testimony is
| strong and abundant on every point.
| The strength of our case was a surprise
| to the others of our counsel. 1t was not
| to me. for / had talked to these men
| and knew what they had told me be-
fore. AS to the taking of the water
by Colorado, witnesses who testified
| that they were agents of the state OF
1
the river at it's headquarters. Further
down it is in the control of the indi-
| viduals or companies. 1t is shown that
| at one place five companies have legal
w recognized claims to 1898 cubic feet
| of water per second from the river,
whereas its normal flow is only from
400 to 700 cubic feet. OF course they
do not get the full amount which they
claim, but the result is that they get
| everything there is.
I'VE did not want to keep Colorado
from taking water from the river. We
| do not ask for the destruction of theil
bitches and irrigating plants, as they
/ seemed to think in the first place, and
/ over which they went clear UP in tbs
air. We only ask for an equable dis
tribution of the water between the two
| states. Let them take the water in ths
spring when the river is full, store j
in their ponds and reservoirs, and us'
II as it is needed, but we do object Z
i their draining the entire supply whel