The Topeka state journal., 1905-10-07

murrer to the original bill, and upon
subsequent motions.
3. That the record being ready for
filing and the abstract of the evidence
in form and condition to be printed
by the end of the month of October
makes it practicable that the case be
submitted and argued at this term.
4. That a very large portion of the
people of the state of Kansas residing
in the southwestern part of the state
in the valley of the Arkansas river, are
largely dependant upon the waters of
the river for their business prosperity
and therein are very largely hamper
ed impeded and damaged by the di-
version and absorption of the flow of
the river by the individual defendants
herein, and that a delay of the hearing
until the succeeding term of court Will
necessarily continue that diversion and
damage by said individual defendants
for at least another year.
3. That the parties to this cause
who are opposing this motion to have
the case set for argument are mainly
the individual defendants who are the
/ largest appropriations Of the waters OF
the river, and whose appropriations
have all been subsequent to and in vi
olation of the prior rights acquired by
the citizens of Kansas, whose rights to
the use and benefit of the water at
tached before those of any of said de-
PENDANTS, and that the continued pos
session and appropriation Of the wa
terS of the river by the said defend
ants during the pendancy of this ac-
ton is prolonged and extended by ev-
cry postpOnement or uelay of final
hearing and adjudication of this case:
and that this fact as complainant YER
lily believes, is the primary reason why
the said defendants are now in this
court opposing the motion of the COM
plainant to have the cause assigned for
early argument.
g. That the defendant, the Arkan-
sas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land
company is one of the latest and very
largest of the appropriations of the
water of the Arkansas river in the
state of Colorado, and all the rights Of
said company were acquired subse-
quently and subject to the rights of the
complainant. That the Amity canal,
controlled, owned and operated by said
defendant, is shown by the evidence to
be of sufficient capacity to divert and
retain the entire normal hoW OF the
river, and at times does divert and use
the entire normal flow of said river
and the complainant claims and insists
that the rights of the complainant, as
against this entire absorption and
diversion of the waters of the river
ought to be adjudicated and deter
mined as soon as practicable. so that
the people and residents in the south
western portion of the state of kansas
in case the claims of the complainant
are sustained, should not be for an ad-
and use of the flow of the waters of the
Arkansas river.
T. That because of the fact as here
inbefore stated, that the defendants
have had in their possession two
copies of the greater portion of the
testimony for now many months, and
the whole of the same for now several
weeks; and because of the further fact
that the testimony will be printed
within a few days or weeks hereafter;
and because of the further fact of the
very elaborate and extended argument
heretofore made in this case by coun-
sci for all parties thereto, and the
clear and extended elucidation of the
law in the opinion Of the court here
tofore rendered; and because of the
further fact that about seven months
will intervene between the printing OF
the abstract of the testimony and the
adjournment of this term of the court
and of the further fact that several Of
the attorneys for the defendants were
/ in constant attendance upon the taking
of testimony, and have been familiar
with the same for many months, the
complainant believes that the briefs
/ can be prepared with all the care anc
attention desired. and presented a.
such times during the present term o.
/ the court as the court may indicate b1
rule, and that no good reason can bS
! advanced why this case cannot b'
heard during the present term Of thii
{