The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1909-03-24

ney General Knox personally. and he
stated in his argument that he be-
leYed the government could base it,
claim and establish grounds for III
functions against the outtake of wa
ter IN Colorado by showing that it
damaged the river below, within Kan
sas, as a nayigable stream. but AIR.
Knox waived that point and announced
to the supreme court that he would rely
upon the point raised that the river was
being damaged for irrigation purposes
in Kansas
The court asked Mr.. Knox to place
his finger upon the paragraph in the
constitution that authorized the gov
eminent to engage in irrigation enter
prises. Knox admitted his inability to
show where the constitution specifically
authorized government irrigation prof.
ects. The court then invited him to
SHOW where. by inference. the eonstitu-
ton prov ded for irrigation projects by
the government. Knox admitted that
in 1156 in all proba bility the trainers
Of the constitution had never heard of
irrigation.
Governments Right Defined.
In 1902" said Mr.. Willis. the recla-
nation act was passed. and this act
gives the government the power to
reclaim its own lands. Last Febru-
airy the circuit court of appeals in San
Francisco, in the case of the govern
ment VS.. Hansen, rendered decision
which has a reference in it to the Tes-
iamatiOn act. Hansen learned that the
government was going TO build res
ervoir at certain point and he squat
ted on government land. When the
time came the government wanted to
get him off, and began ejectment pro-
ceedings, Hansen fought the case, AID
his contention was that the govern
ment should either have bought Inn
out or commenced condemnation pro-
ceedings. and he was sustained. That
is the only decision rendered by the
courts touching upon the authority of
the government under the reclamation
law. and the decision on the point
raised by Mr.. Burley in Boise will
therefore be very important"
Mr.. Willis viii contend in this case
that the government has the right to
engage in reclamation proceedings 10
benefit its own lands and that it has
the right to bring condemnation pro-
ceedings when the object is to benefit
its own holdings, but that it is power
less 10 condemn the lands of one citizen
to benefit the lands of another He
will argue that the government is un-
able under the laws to establish its
! i7AAA III Atit HANIN4tN NeA1t W "a iiAo NAaN
condemnation proceedings.
Rights of Citizens.
I'm many things" said Mr.. Willis.
citizens have rights beyond what the
government has. individuals have
rights which belong to them By virtue
of citizenship. What rights the gov
eminent has are conferred by the con-
stitution. A foreigner cannot come
hero nd fqI-o land M Citizen
confer upon the foreigner a right which
the law does not give him. Now, we
claim that the private citizens who are
to be benefited by the reclamation prof.
ect which the government has on in
Idaho cannot confer upon the govern
ment the right 10 bring condemnation
against Mr.. Burley, be-
cause such privilege would be plac-
ing those citizens ahead of the law in
letting them give the government a
privilege which the constitution of the
United States does not confer.
I want to state shat MIR. Burley does
not desire to interfere with the great
reclamation work that is going on. He
is most heartily in sympathy with
every move that will help build up and
settle the country, but this point is an
important one to settle. 1t. means a
great deal more than most persons i'm
agine. but il will not mean the aban-
doEment of the project or any part of
IT, II Will mean that before the case
Is finished the government viii pay the
$40 an acre awarded by the jury last
and that the persons who are
taking the water from the government
for their private lands will get to-
retheT and make up an additional
amount per acre to satisfy the just
claims of Mr. Burley for the loss of
his lands"