The Glenwood post., 1907-05-18

mer Governor Charles S. Thomas. Kan.
sas was represented by A. A. Goddard,
its attorney general, and E. F. Ware,
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 a
case of this 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 it
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 it
claimed had always prevailed as a
principle of law in the arid West, in
Guiding western Kansas. 1t was also
claimed that II 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 I, 1903. Kansas asked
iNd'V W HiS oh dlll0hlVu Dlll vi SOIs
plant and to make additional parties,
namely. several Colorado ditch compa-
MES, parties defendant. Granted.
Colorado's Answer.
August II, 1908. 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.
| fendant 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.
tion 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 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 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 Is, 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 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. 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. Vale and Attorney General n. C.
Miller. The United States as inter-
yenor 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 difficulty in securing
| suftcient 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
acted upon.
Justice Brewer, who rendered the de-
cision, is 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 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 peti
''cA ~ ~ ,hi NC oAoN II 'hdt Tie
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 a 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.