The Colorado statesman., 1907-05-18

its attorney general, and e. F. Ware,
a brilliant attorney, and a poet known
as "Ironquill." April Z. 1902, the court
overruled the demurrer without going
into the merits of the controversy the
court being of the opinion that in
case ofsthis Importance all facts should
be before it before it passed upon
mere questions of law
November 81, 1902, the state of
Colorado filed its answer in which II
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
principle of law in the arid West, in
cluding western Kansas. 1t was also
| claimed that if any injury had been
| suffered 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 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.
coIorado's Answer.
August II, 1903. the amended bill
was fled October IA, 1908, Colorado
filed its answer to the amended bill
which answer followed the original
lines. At the same time parties de.
fendant filed their answers Publica-
| ton to the answer was filed by Kan.
| sas March 7, 1904.
March IA, 1904, the United States,
] by it's attorney general, moved the
court to intervene, stating that 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
tion 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 81, 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 Commissioners
| 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 15
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 15, 1905.
On the return of the commissioner
the court appointed the 9th day of Oc.
| 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 un-
| til December II, 1906, when it was ar
| gued for Kansas by S. S. Ashbaugh
N. H. Loomis, F. Dumont Smith and
c. c. Coleman, attorney general. Colo
RADIOS case was argued by Clyde Daw.
son, d. C. Beaman, Platt Rogers, Joel
F. Vaile and Attorney General N. c.
| Miller. The United States as inter.
venor was represented by Solicitor
General Hoy, who was assisted by A.
G. 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 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 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
@cted upon.
| Justice Brewer, who rendered the de-
cision, is a Kansas man, and, 1t is pre-
sumed, would give the state of Kansas
all that was coming to it. Denver law.
yers interested in the suit saw 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 peti.
tion whenever 1t 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
tion was disproved, seems to have dis
posed of the cause in its entirety, and
left the state of Kansas without leg
to 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.