The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-05-14
IRRIGATION LAW
MAY BE INVOLVED
Question of ConStituti0naIity
Raised by Supreme Court
Opinion.
LIMITATION ON CONGRESS
STATES RIGHTS DOCTRINE
HOLDS GOOD.
LIMITATION ON CONGRESS
(sbecial to The Heraldl

Washington. d. C., May 1S-United
States supreme court, in its decision in
kansaS-coloradO case, today intimate
rather strongly that the national recIama-
ton act. under which the federal govern
ment is spending upward of s39o0O.000
may be unconstitutional 1t is not so held
in specific terms but the opinion of the
court indicates that the constitutionality
of this act is i'm question. and il would not
be surprising if private interests which
are interfered with by government pro
jects. should bring suit to restrain the
government from divertinE water for irri-
cation purposes. There is already one
such suit pending brought by former Sen
atOr Turner Of Washington, on behalf Of
an Arizona company that wants to re-
strain government work on the Colorado
river so that they can use the water TO
reclaim lands in California
1t is entirely probable the Twin Falls
cOmpanJ in Idaho may bring suit in the
light of today's decision. for there is 2
prospect OF conflict between the gov
eminent and private enterprise along the
Snake river.
States Rights Decision.
In rendering the decision in the Kan
sas-COforadO case. Justice Brewer on be
half Of the court. declared that congress
can only legislate in respect to such mat
ters as are specifically enumerated in the
constitution. and that power to Iegislate
with respect 10 irrigation of arid lands
was not one of the enumerated powers
granted by the constitution.
Upon this subject he used the following
language:
AT the time of the adoption of the con-
stitution within the known limits of the
United States there were no large tracts
OF arid lands. and nothing which called
for any action than that which might be
taken by the legislature Of a state. in
which any particular tract of land was to
be found. and the constitution. therefore.
makes no provision for national control
81 arid 4fs.fr.
But as our national territory has been en-
larged, we have within our borders extern
sive tracts of arid lands which ought to
he reclaimed. and It may well be that no
power is adequate for their reclamation
other than that of tho national govern
ment- But if no such power has been
granted, none can be exercised
Can LegisIate for Territories.
The opinion holds. however. that con-
gress may legisiate with respect to irFi-
cation of arid lands within the territories
Even though the constitutonality of ma
tional reclamation Law may ultimately be
sustained, II the question is ever raised.
the court strongly intimates that under
that law there is no authority for con
structing government projects unless the
government owns a majority Of the lana
to be reclaimed. holding that the govern
'ment has power to dispose of and make
rules respecting its own property. But it
is held we do not mean that its Con
Efes,S ltSlSidtibtl tdn ONeiftGe STATE laws
in respect to the general subject of recla-
nation"
This part Of the decision would seem to
affect government work now in progress
in eastern Washington. where the govern
ment does not own a majority of the land
to be reclaimed; in fact is only small
owner. Should the constitutiOnality of the
reclamation act be later established il is
inferred from this decision that the gov
eminent may later be compelled to con-
stTuct its works in accordance with state
laws, and construct only projects the ma
jOrity whose area is public land