Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1907-02-23
JUSTICE Mann
. DISMISSED CASES
Against Reclama-
ton Engineers Of
Hondo Project
nN AIIarAiallAln annTInll
BY SUSTAINING MOTION
For That Purpose Cases Re-
late to Private Claims For
Water Distribution.

In the cases of Rufus j. Donahoo
versus w. NJ Reed ct al. and T. M.
Daniel versus w. M. Reed ct AL. Judge
Edward A. Mann yesterday afternoon
sustained the motion filed by counsel
for the defense dismissing the causes
for want of jurisdiction. Mention of
these cases has already been made
in the. New Mexican and the facts in
volved are fully covered by the opin.
ion rendered by the court. Mr.. Reed
and associates who were made defend.
ants to the two suits are officials of
the United States Reclamation Ser
vice having charge of the construc-
tion of the Hondo Reservoir project
and Judge Mann maintains that the
United States to secure proper juris-
diction should have been made party
to both actions.
The opinion is of general interest in
New Mexico because of the question
of water rights involved and Is in full
as fellows:
In the Fifth Judicial District of the
Territory OF New Mexico, Sitting in
and for the County of Chaves.
Rufus J. Donnahoo,
VS.. No. 106S.
w. NJ. Reed, ct al
T. NJ. Daniel, ct al,
VS.. No. 1869.
w. NJ. Reed, ct al.
Memorandum Opinion.
Mann, A. J.
in order to determine the question
of jurisdiction raised by the motions
filed in these cases, it Is necessary
to determine in my judgment whether
the relief sought is from the nominal
defendants or from the United States,
or in other words whether the defend
ants, as individuals, are trespassing
upon the alleged rights of the plain.
tiffs SO that they as individuals can
afford the remedy without involving
the rights and property Of the United
States.
The substance Of the complaint is
that they, the PLAINTIFF, had certain
water rights to the waters flowing in
the Hondo River in Chaves County
and had diverted and were using a
certain amount of water through a
certain ditch to irrigate their lands
and that the defendant constructed a
dam which closed their intake and cut
off the water so being used by plain.
tiffs and conveyed all the waters of
the Rio Hondo by means of bitches
to reservoir known as the Hondo
reservoir, and prays that the dam be
changed in its construction so that
the water claimed by plaintiffs be al
lowed to flow down the ditch alleged
to have been used by them for such
purpose, or to so arrange its manage
ment and operation that it will not
prevent the water from SO flowing to
their said lands.
Property of United States.
Answering the defendants denial
that plaintiffs owned the water rights
claimed or that they had used such
water for years, alleged abandonment
of the ditch claimed by plaintiff and
aver that the dam as constructed as
alleged in the complaint was built
under the provisions of the Reclama.
tion Act, acting through the Secretary
of the Interior, and that the dam, res
ervoir, canal and entire system is the
property of the United States and the
defendants had no interest whatever
IN the matter, being merely employees
,f the Reclamation Service. Plain
tiffs reply denying any means Of
knowledge or information as to the
ownership In the United States or the
interests of the defendants, therefore
deny the same.
| have not attempted to cover all
the allegations in the pleadings but
only those portions bearing on the
question Of jurisdiction the merits not
being under consideration at this
time.
Counsel for the defendants move to
dismiss upon the statements contained
In the pleadings upon the ground that
the United States is necessary party
within the meaning of Section 1874,
r. s. U. S., defining the jurisdiction
Of the Territorial District Courts.
As view 1t the reply admits the al
legation that the dam and irrigation
system set up in the answer being
the dam Of which they complaint, was
built by the United States under the
provisions OF the Reclamation Act
(Act June II, 1902, and while It is
true that they deny knowledge or in
formation as to the ownership, yet
the above admission must carry with
It an admission Of ownership in the
United States as the act in question
expressly provides ".that the title to
and management and operation OF the
reservoirs, and the works necessary
for their protection and operation
shall remain in the government until
otherwise provided by Congress"
Could Not Interfere With Government
Property.
It thus appears that the relief asked
necessitates an interference with gov
ernment property or an exercise OF
control over the management and op-
GRAFTON of property which is by law
placed in the government Of the Uni.
led States, and that this court In or