East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1907-05-15

The Washington correspondent OF
the Portland Oregonian gives re-
view of a decision by Justice Brewer
Of the United States supreme court
which may possibly affect. remotely,
the government irrigation projects of
the west. The decision was render
ed in the contention between the
states Of Colorado and Kansas, over
the use Of the water of the Arkan-
sas river, and brings up the constitu-
tionali;y of the national reclamation
act.
In many places private interests
are opposed to national irrigation
projects and every possible technical
point which may be found to preju-
dice or hinder the reclamation OF the
arid land by the government will be
used to further private interests. The
correspondent says of the decision
and questions arising from It:
The United States supreme court
in its decision in the Kansas-C Colora-
do case today intimates rather
strongly that the national reclama-
ton act under which the federal gov
ernment is spending upwards of $780,
100000 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 IN question, and II would not be
surprising IL private interests which
are interfered with by government
projects should bring suit to restrain
he a
for irrigation purposes.
There is really one such suit
pending, brought by ex-senator Tur-
ner of Washington, on behalf of an
Arizona company that wants to re-
strain government work on the Colo
rado river, SO that 1t can use water
TO reclaim land in California. 1t is
entirely probable that the Twin Falls
COMPANY In Idaho may bring suit
"a the light Of today's decision, for
there is prospect of a conflict be-
tween the government and private
enterprises along the Snake river.
No Power TO Reclaim Land
In rendering the decision in the
Kansas Colorado case, Justice Brew
er, on behalf of the court, declared
that congress can only legislate in
respect to such matters as are speci-
fically enumerated in the constitu-
ton and that power to legislate with
respect to irrigation of arid land was
not one of the enumerated powers
granted by the constitution. Upon
this subject he uses the following
language,
At the time of the adoption of the
constitution, within the known linz
its of the United States there were no
large tracts of arid land and nothing
which called for any further action
that which might be taken by the
Legislature of the state in which any
particular tract of land was to be
found
The constitution, therefore, makes
no provision for national control of
arid regions 0r their reclamation.
But as our national integrity has
been enlarged, we have within our
borders extensive tracts of arid land
which ought to be reclaimed, and It
may well be that no power is ade-
quate for their reclamation other
than that Of the national govern
ment. But II no such power has been
granted, none can be exercised.
The opinion holds, however, that
congress may legislate with respect
to irrigation Of arid land within the
territories.
Must Own Majority of Land.
Even though the constitutionality
of the national reclamation law may
ultimately be sustained, IL the ques-
ton is ever raised, the court strong
ly intimates that under the law there
is nc authority for constructing gov
ernment projects unless the govern
ment owns majority of the land to
be reclaimed. holding that the gov
+ + + + + + + + 4. Z Z = = Z 4 +