Imperial Valley press and the Imperial press., 1906-06-16

NSabius VT Iikub5 uHuti dHy nuVh Nv"7 tract.
 The doctrine of this case was subse- quently recognized and approved by the U $. Circuit Court of Appealsin the case of San Diego Plume Company vs. South CT, l04 Fed. 706, and alsoin asubsequent case of the same title in the U. s., re- ported in the 1l2 Fed, 228.
 The conclusion which IS drawn by the court in this case of Fresno Irrigation and Canal company vs. Park is that while the use of water that has been ap- propriated for sale for irrigation is un- der the constitution a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state in the manner to be prescribed by law, unless law be enacted upon the subject, and unless that control be exercised under the law, the company or person appropriating the water can make such charge for the water as he sees fit. And further, that even though such law has been enacted, the company appropriating water and the user may make such contract as they may see fit and that such contract is valid and binding upon both appropriator and user.
 The California Development company entered into 8 contract with the Imper- ial Water company No. 1, under which the California Development company agrees to furnish to the Imperial Water company No. certain water at cer- tain price. and the Imperial Water com pany agrees to take certain amount of water and pay therefor certain price. This contract under the decisions cited, is a valid and binding contract up- on both the parties and the rate at which the California Development com pany furnishes water to the Imperial Water company No. cannot be fixed or in any way interfered with by the board of supervisors of San Diego conn ty or any other municipal body.
 Another question which has been sug- gested is whether or not the board of supervisors can fix the rate atwhich the Imperial Water company No. l shall furnish water to it's stockholders or per sons other than stockholders. In so far as the question relates to persons other than stockholders, we will say here that the Imperial Water company No. not only cannot be compelled to furnish water to such persons, but has no right so to do; a further consideration of the reasons for this statement will be pre- scented.
 The Imperial Water company No. is formed far the purpose of supplying water to it's stockholders at cost. This is practically the only purpose of the corporation In the case of McFadden vs. board of supervisors, "A Cal. 571, the court says:
 "In this case it is clearly apparent that the waters under the control of the corporation were acquired to be held and employed for the use of the stock holders only. An individual can cer- tainly acquire water to be used on his own land. With such use board of su- pervisors would have nothing to do. We know of no reasons why individuals cannot associate themselves, take on corporate form, and acquire water to be used on their own lands. When this is done, we are of opinion that board of supervisors can have no more power over the rates to be paid by the stock holders than in the case of individ- uals ..
 By the bv-laws, the directors of the corporation are authorized to charge the stockholders such sums for the wat CT as may cover the ordinary expenses of the company.
 "It further appears from the answer that the waters acquired and held to be hs, t.cn the lands of the stockholders, ai.A Iot for sale, distribution and rental oE otherwise; and from the bylaws, that no water shall be sold or used for any purpose on lands not covered by stock of the company-with a proviso allowing a stockholder to use water on other lands on certain conditions-but the water is to be used bV or sold to no