The Idaho Springs siftings-news., 1907-05-18

mer Governor Charles : Thomas. Kan.
sas was represented by A. A Goddard,
its attorney general. and f. r. Ware,
a brliiiaht attorney and a poet known
as "lronqui..' April !. 1902. the court
oNerruled thy demurrer without going
into the merits Of the controversy. the
court beng Of the opinion that in a
case OF TINS Importance all facts should
be before it before it passed upon
mere questions of law.
"NoNembgT 81. 1902, the state OF
Colorado filed its answer in which it
denied That the state itself diverted
or lntenLru TO divert any waters, and
justified the diversion Try individuals
in the sta'e by the doctrine of appro-
priauon for beneficial uses. which it
claimed had always prevailed as a
principle of law in the arid West, in
cludlng western Kansas. 1t was also
claimed that If any injury had been
sunered by Kansas as a result OF the
diversion Of the waters of the Arkan.
sas that they had not been caused by
any diversion in the state of Colorado;
also denied any injury to the state Oh
Kansas or is people
"On June /, 1903, Kansas asked
leave TO file an amended bill of com.
plant and to make additional parties,
namely, several Colorado ditch compa
nieS, parties defendant Granted
Coorado's Answer.
August Il. 1903. the amended bill
was filed. October IA, 1903, Colorado
filed its answer To the amended bill
which answer followed the original
lines. Al The same time parties de.
fendant filed their answers. Publica.
ton to the answer was filed by Kan.
sas March :. lsOl.
March a. 1904, the United States,
by its attorney general. moved the
court To intervene, stating that a de-
termination of the case would affect
the public domain and the administra-
tion OF several acts of Congress most
important of which was the reclama
ton act and that the general welfare
or the people of the United States
would be affected On the same day
the state of Colorado moved to dis,
miss bill of complaint and the motion
was never disposed Of, being reserved
for final hearing
March u. 1904. the United States
was allowed to file petition Of inter,
ventfon, which was presented to the
court two days later. The court then
appointed Granville A. Richardson OF
New Mexico as special commissioner
to take testimony in the case and re-
port the same to the court. The com.
missioner began the taking of testi.
mony in Wichita, Kansas. August Is,
1904. continuing it from time to time
in various places in Colorado. Wyom-
ing, New Mexico and at Washington
The taking OF testimony was not closed
until June 10, 1905.
On the return of the commissioner
the court appointed the 9Th day of Oc.
tober, 1906. ior the hearing of the argu.
ments on the entire case as submitted
Owing 10 a vacancy in the Supreme
Court the case was then postponed un.
I'll December II, 1906 when it was ar
gued for Kansas by S. S. Ashbaugh
n. II. Ioomis, +. Dumout Smith and
c. Z. Coleman. attorney general. Colo
RADIOS case was argued by Clyde Daw.
son, D, c. Beaman. Platt Rogers, Joel
F. Vale and Attorney General y. c.
Miller The United States as inter.
venor was represented by Solicitor
General Hoy, who was assisted by A
c. Campbell and Frank J. Campbell.
The arguments required three full
iays. when the case was taken under
advsement. The decision of the court
handed down was not unexpected by
those who followed the case closely"
The matter was of such serious i'm.
port to the state of Colorado that ev-
cry citizen seemed to take an interest
and there was no difficulty in securing
sufficient evidence to prove that the
state of Kansas had suffered no real
damage. About two years ago, when
severe floods occurred in many towns
along the Arkansas river in Kansas,
some OF the Colorado lawyers sug
gested to Kansas that 1t withdraw the
suit, as the river was giving more wa.
ter than could be handled by the state.
This suggestion was, of course, not
2"red upon
Justice Brewer, who rendered the de.
ciSlOn, is Kansas man. and it is pre-.
sumed, would give the state of Kansas
all that was coming to it. Denver law.
y"Is interested in the suit say that
they do not understand how Kansas
can have any rights in the case at all
at The present time. The dispa' Ches
from Washington announcing the de.
ctsion say that the suit is dismissed
without prejudice 10 Kansas and that
Kansas has the right to serve its petit.
tiOn whenever it can be shown that the
state is being substantially injured.
The fact that the suit was based upon
The assertion that an actual and sub.
stantial injury occurred, which asser
tian was dlsproved. seems to have dis
posed of the cause in its entirety, and
left the state of Kansas without a leg
tc stand on" as the lawyers say. D. c.
Beaman says that he thinks that some
error has crept into the first reports
AS he don't see how Kansas can have
any privileges in the matter at all,
having failed to prove that any sub.
stantial injury had occurred.