Arizona republican., 1905-12-06
IA FURTHER HEARING
 BY ENGINEERS BOARD
The Side of Minority Shareholders
 Presented by Mr. Chalmers.

1 The session of the engineering board of appraisers yesterday afternoon was not of long duration nor was it the oc- casion of bringing out much that was new concerning the claims of different | interests concerned in the water ques- tions of the valley. l.. H. Chalmers representing portion of the minority shareholders in the three old canals, presented a type written brief setting forth more definitely his verbal argu- ment the day before and citing some precedents on which he depends for maintenance of his case, as well as some legal authorities.
 | A short synopsis of Mir. Chalmers brief is that 1t was his purpose to prove | by law that the rights held by the | farmers had become easements in the canals, are therefore property on which a valuation should be placed and which l if bought, should be paid for directly to the owners. He said that in the be- ginning the canal stock was treated as water rights. Later three water rights were created for each share of stock, l to be deeded to lands which had ap- propriated water, under the canals. He ! said the court had held that one of these water rights is separate from tho | appropriation of water but possession ] entitled the owner to have his water i carried through the canal to his land. | The speaker then referred to the Slos- ser case and to the brief of a we'll known attorney bearing on the subject. He also quoted some eight or ten au- thorities and requested the commission or its attorneys to examine the. cases and he believed his position would be proved. He added in conclusion that his clients had no intention of asking exorbitant prices for their rights but he believed they held property that was of real value and should be paid for to make the title good.
 Following Mir. Chalmers Judge Aims worth and Judge Kibbey spoke briefly. In general both agreed that MT. Chal- mers' argument should have no weight before the commission for it concerned class of property, water rights, that | had not been presented by Judge Ains- worth in his schedule of property for sale, a class of property regarding which no argument had been made either for Or against by the principal | parties to the proposed transaction. Judge Kibbey as on the day before, said he did not care to discuss these values in any way. Judge Ainsworth, however, said to MT. Chalmers in re- sponse, that it occurred to him that the time for him to act was when the Arizona Water company attempted to sell something. It claims it can give a good title to the property it has for sale. If MT. Chalmers holds a differ ent view maintaining that the water rights of his clients are a cloud on the title. his controversy is with the water company and not with the board of engineers.
 Concerning the matter of title, MT Wisner, who was presiding. made 2 very few remarks in which he stated -that the commission was appointed fol the purpose of appraising the property of the Arizona Water company, for 2 certain specific purpose, and that tn, matter of title would naturally have tc be passed upon by the attorneys for the government.
 Messrs. Lincoln Fowler, Dwight B
 Heard and B. A. Fowler, each address, ed the board but only for a few min utes and only in respect of details Lincoln Fowler said that the peopl, he represented were in a large measur,
 the same people interested with tn,
 minority. He held though that the.
 could not lose their water rights ac cruing through appropriation, believed
 they could run their water through thu
 Appropriators canal if they chose anC only sought protection. If their right: were to be sold they wanted to be paiC
 for them and if not they wanted then
 cared for all the way through so ther'