Arizona republican., 1904-09-11
They May Settle the Vexed
 Water Question
COMMINGLING PROTESTED
Canal Shareholders Want Nothing 10 Do With Arizona Water Company and Are Averse to Paying w. B. Cleary for Legal Services.

| and Salt River Canal companies have | brought suit against the Arizona Wat ! CT company, w. B. Cleary, Lloyd E. | Christy. and Lin B. Orme for sums | aggregating $40, 800. In behalf of the | territory Judge A. c. Baker district | attorney for Maricopa county, brings suit against the Maricopa, Grand and Salt River canal companies to forever exclude each of them from exercising | the rights of franchise. Included in the suits for recovery which the share holders file is an item of $2,0OO in the case of each canal for which judgment is prayed against W. B. Cleary for sums ''wrongfully and unlawfully ob- tained by Cleary by means of unlaw- | ful charges for simulated and worth less alleged legal services pretended to have been rendered by him" when "an | attorney other than C.eary'' was regu- larly paid flor the performance of all legal services required" by each of the complainants.
 | Judge Bakers suits to recall and an- null the franchise of the Maricopa, Grand and Salt River canal companies and to forever exclude either of them from exercising the franchise or oper- ating as a corporation, recites numer- | ous grounds for this action. Each suit | alleges willful violation of the duties imposed by the charter Of each compa- ny, the violation of it's franchise and actions contrary to the territorial stat utes, the laws of congress and public policy. It is alleged that water IS dis tiibuted without regard to tha Deces- | sity of tracts of land under said canal for water for the cultivation of crops growing thereon and without regard to priority of right to the use Of said water as determined by the dates of | the reclamation of said tracts and the | continuous use of water thereon.
 In each of the three suits 1t is all legged that the defendant canal com pany has permitted itself to be con trolled by a corporation known as the Arizona Water company which is in control of all canals on the north side of the Salt river, that is the Maricopa, the Salt River, the Grand and the Arizona canals; that said canal per- nits this Arizona Water company to rotate the water available fer distri- button upon the north side of the Salt river between these several canals without regard to the rights of the iD- dividual canal as to the diversion of said water as measured by the rights of the several appropriatofs of water hereunder.
 Furthermore, it Is charged of each of the three defendant canal companles that it has surrendered all of its fran chise to act as a corporation and to do and perform it's franchises and du- ties to divert and carry water for ir- rigation to consumers because for two years past the majority of all shares Of the capital stock of each has been held and controlled by the Arizona Water company without regard to the intel ests and profit of the individual canal company or its shareholders.
 Nor does the late alleged neglect es- cape notice. It is averred that while each canal company was exercising ] the franchises of a corporation and pretending to perform its several ob- jects and purposes, it has so neglected to keep in repair the dam at tne head of the canal and so neglected to kCei the canal clean and in condition to car ry water that persons dependent 1por same for water were and are deprived of an adequate supply for long periods and that by reason of this neglect the crops of grain and alfalfa have beer lost or destroyed while orchards anc vineyards once profitable, are ruined and the lands which these occupied art reduced in value.
 There is a section which sets fortl strenuous objection to any increase il water rates over that rate which haC prevailed in the Maricopa canal for least fifteen years prior to 1903. Thii rate has been $2.25 per miner inch, an( the complaint ayers that such rate wal entirely sufficient and that when thu Arizona Water company increased thi
 rate to S2.55 per inch for the same ser = vice it was wrongful, unlawful and ex 1 | tortionate.
 It is therefore prayed by Judge Bak
 CT in behalf of the territory that eacl
 of these three canal companies be for ever excluded from exercising franchis es of diverting, taking, carrying or dis l tributing water for irrigation or oth ! erwise.
 It is also prayed that each of thes companies be forever excluded from ex
 ercisings the franchises or from operat ing as a corporation.
 = Those suits filed by shareholders il I. behalf of the companies are styled a q follows: John P. Orme for himself an
  5 Canal company, versus the Maricop' e Canal company, w. B. Cleary, Lloyd E
 Christy, Lin B. Orme and the Arizoni
 Water company; Carry A. Lount an 5 Edna B. Parker, for themselves and al e other shareholders of-the Salt Rive = Valley Canal company, versus sal
 River Valley Canal company, w. . Cleary, Lloyd B. Christy, Lin B. Orm land the Arizona Water company; Jno F. Orme, for himself and all othe ' shareholders in the Grand Canal com Fl pany, versus the Grand Canal com pany, w. B. Cleary, Lloyd B. Christy
 Lin B. Orme and the Arizona Wate company.
 In each case the plaintiffs state tha they are informed and believe that sai civilian B. Christy, Lloyd B. Christ land Lin B. Orme, nominally electe | ootioor oHinarS If SaS1 canal com