The Lamar register., 1907-05-22

mer Governor Charles S. Thomas. Kan
sas was represented by A. A. Goddard.
its attorney general. and E. F. Ware.
a brilliant attorney. and poet known
as "Ironquill." April 7, 1902. the court
overruled the demurrer without going
into the merits of the controversy. the
court being of the opinion that In a
case of this Importance all facts should
be before it before 1t passed upon
mere questions of law.
November 81, 1902, the state of
Colorado filed its answer in which 1t
denied that the state itself diverted
or intended to divert any waters, and
justified the diversion by individuals
in the state by the doctrine Of appro-
priation for beneficial uses, which 1t
claimed had always prevailed as q
principle of law in the arid West. in.
GLIDING western Kansas. 1t was also
claimed that IL any injury had been
suffered by Kansas as 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 Of
Kansas or its people.
"On June 1. 1908, Kansas asked
leave to file an amended bill of COM
plant and to make additional parties,
namely, several Colorado ditch compa
MES. parties defendant. Granted.
Colorado's Answer.
August II. 1903. the amended bill
was filed. October IA. 1908. Colorado
filed its answer to the amended bill
which answer followed the original
lines. At the same time parties de
PENDANT filed their answers. Publica.
ton to the answer was filed by Kan
sas March Z. 1904.
March IA. 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.
ton of several acts of Congress, most
important of which was the reclama
ton act, and that the general welfare
of 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 Fl. 1904. the United States
| was allowed to file petition Of inter.
| vention. 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 1t 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 DC
tober. 1906. for the hearing Of the argu
ments on the entire case as submitted.
Owing to a vacancy in the Supreme
Court the case was then postponed I'M.
til December II. 1906. when 1t was ar.
gued for Kansas by s. s. Ashbaugh.
N. II. LOOMS, F. Dumont Smith and
C. c. Coleman. attorney general. Colo
RADIOS case was argued by Clyde Daw-
son, d. C. Beaman, Plat Rogers, Joel
F. Vale and Attorney General N. 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
days. when the case was taken under
advisement. 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 din1culty 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 It withdraw the
suit. as the river was giving more wa
ter than could be handled by the state.
This suggestion was. of course, not
acted upon.
Justice Brewer who rendered the dc.
cision. is a Kansas man. and. II Is pre-
sumed. would give the state OF Kansas
all that was coming to 1t. Denver law
yers 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 dispatches
from Washington announcing the de-
cision say that the suit is dismissed
without prejudice to Kansas and that
Kansas has the right to serve its petit
tion whenever 1t can be shown that the
state is being substantially injured.
f, The fact that the suit was based upon
the assertion that an actual and sub
stantial injury occurred, which asser-
ton was disproved, seems to have dis
posed of the cause in Its entirety, and
left the state OF Kansas without a leg
to stand on" as the lawyers say. ID. 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.