Arizona republican., 1910-12-17
Arizona the Pioneer.


 The recent decision of the supreme court of the United States in a water suit from Graham county. appealed from the supreme court of Ari/Ona, leads the New York Sun to nIaNe lengthy editorial comment on the fact that the decision is a striking eX- ample of the flexible manner in which the law adspts-itself to the de- velopments of modern civilization The fact under discussion is the ap- pointment of water commissioner by the supreme court of Arizona, em- powered to carry out it's decree as to the distribution of water in the valley of the upper Gila-the right of the court to appoint such an officer m the absence of a law giving the au- thority to make such appointment having been attacked by one of the litigants. The supreme court of the United States upheld the validity of the action of the territorial supreme court. and this feature of the case is made the text of the suns intelligent comments. The Sun is in error, how ever. in its statement that
 Here we have the case of the ap- pointment of an officer hitherto un- known to the law, but whose ap- pointment is manifestly necessary in order 10 carry out the judgment of the court"
 IL was in 1892. we believe. that Judge Kibbey, from the district bench of Maricopa county. first appointed water commissioner" to carry out the decree of the court in an irriga- lion suit-it was in connection with the decree in the celebrated "Wormser suit" in which the rights of the sev- rraI water users were adjudicated. The man appointed was Will Stand age Many lawyers at the time ques- tioned the power of the court to ere ate such an office, there being no specific statutory authority therefor; but Judge Kibbey took the ground that the power was lodged with the court hv reason of the statute which said. in substance. that the court should cause its judgments and de- crees To be carried into execution. The court had decreed that the water should be distributed thus and SO How. reasoned Judge Kibbey. could the court enforce constantly, every day and indefinitely into the future, it's decree unless it could appoint an officer to be on the ground and en- force it? This view of 1he courts power was soon accepted by most of the legal fraternity. and few years later Judge Baker. from the same bench. appointed Nh. frank P. Trott to be water commissioner. with the same authority as had been exercised by his predecessor. MT. Standage-to make daily distribution of water from the Salt river into the several irri- eating canals on each side of the river. MT Trott stiil holds the office. having been reappointed thereto by Judge Kent And now the supreme court of the United States has up- held the doctrine that it is within the power of the courts in this territory to appoint commissioners to see that their Judgments are carried into ef- feet.
 IL was in the same "Wormser suit that an Arizona court became the pioneer in promulgating another and still more revolutionary doctrine-the doctrine laid down by Judge Kibbey that the water belongs to the land and is not a commodity; that canal company is merely a carrier of water and has only the right to make proper charge for its service as carrier. This doctrine also has be- come the law of the irrigated west