Los Angeles herald., 1906-02-20

in the city's patents does not affect
title, as the government did not under
take to grant or control water any
where, but recognized the public use
and left the question to be determined
by local laws in force at the time of
the grant.
That the city is not seeking to take
private property for public use without
due process of law, as the water was
used first by the city, but on the con-
trary the defendants are taking away
from the city what belongs to the city.
That the city does not seek to inter-
fere with anyone using the waters of
the river in San Fernando valley for
domestic purposes.
That the waters in the land of San
Fernando basin are not percolating
waters, but are part of the river
whose natural barriers are the Verdugo
hills on the north and the Cahuenga
hills on the south.
That the defendants who are pump
ing water for irrigation put down their
wells since 1898 and since the claims of
the city have been litigated in court,
and therefore they had sufficient legal
notice and should have known when
they bought land that they were not
buying clear title to the water under
the ground.
That it has been decided uniformly
I1dC puDllc COfpOrdllOllS uO IlOl lOSe
rights to lands impressed by public
use. either by adverse use or statute of
limita tions, and therefore the citys
claim is not barred.
That if there is any third person In
the case it is the city, whose rights
have been established by the Mexican
law, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidal-
go. by acts of the legislatu ture, by pub
lie use always made of the river and
by decisions of the supreme court of
the United States.
Judge Gibbs concludes his opinion
with the following statement regard
ing the claim of the valleyites that
Los Angeles had no equity upon which
to base their demand for an injunc-
ton:
ITO get at and determine the equity
of this case requires a broad view of
not only the history of the foundation
of the city and its subsequent growth,
but the fact must never be lost sight
of that, because the Los Angeles river
was here, the city is here. 1t has al
ways been the very life blood of the
city. 1t has been tapped, attacked,
claimed and encroached upon for
nearly a hundred years; sometimes by
physical force, but more often by liti-
CATION; and all through this time the
city has maintained its own. Attor-
neys have exercised most elaborate in
genuity and skill to overcome and put
aside what seems to me the most
firmly established right, equity and
Justice Of the city of Los Angeles to
the waters of the river. Defendants
claim that 1t is time enough to issue
an injunction when the need is shown.
But 1T appeared from the evidence
that last summer the city at one time
was in distress for water The city
of Los Angeles is not bound to wait
until a calamity Is upon 1t. but may
protect itself now, in the care for its
future; for it does appear that the de-
PENDANTS not only are abstracting the
water. but threaten to continue to alb
stract the water. from the river 1t
appears that the defendants have
formed a corporation for protection
and defense; and it also appears from
the evidence that these defendants are
not only taking the water from the
city, but are taking water from each
other; and 1t would not be five years
II left alone before they would have
to have some zanjero look after their
mutual interests or be in hopeless liti-
CATION among themselves; as 1t has
appeared that all of the older wells
have either had TO be abandoned or
be put down lower; and some of them
lowered several times. This fact alone
should be patent to the defendants
that the quicker that they join the
city I'm its efforts to obtain control and
distribute more water the better for
them.
The defendants seem to be exceed
ingly solicitous that, II an injunction
should be granted In this case, 1t would
be disastrous to them, but cannot