Yerington times. [volume] (Yerington, Nev.) 1907-1932, 1910-01-22
WALKER RIVER
WATER SUIT IN
HIGHEST COURT

MUHEOI UUUnI
Washington, Jan. IS. A controversy
between citizens of the states of Cali
fornia and Nevada, involving the right
to use for irrigation aud other purposes
the waters of the Walker river, which
flow in both states, and attacking the
jurisdiction of the United States circuit
court of Nevada to interfere in the title
rights to lands in California, was ar
gued in the supreme court OF the United
States today.
The case was originally entitled:
Miller & Lux vs.. Thomas p Hickey"
The plaintiff S own about q, 900 acres of
land in Nevada, lying along the Walker
river, and the defendant, Hickey, and
associates hold title to about 10000
acres located in California along the
headwaters of the same river and above
the Miller & Lux property.
Miller & Lux begun the original act.
ion in the United States circuit court in
Nevada in 1902 TO restrain the Hickey
interests from using the waters of the
Walker river in California. which they
alleged deprived them of their supply
in Nevada. Hickey pleaded lack OF
jurisdiction OH the part OF the court,
but Judge Hawley of the United States
circuit court of Nevada held that he had
a right to regulate the titles to land in
California The defendants then brought
SUIT in the superior court OF Mono
county, California, against Miller and
Lux to quiet title to the California land.
Judge Hawley, upon application of
Miller & Lux. enjoined this action on
the ground OF an invasion of the Jnris-
diction OF the federal court. The cir
cult court OF appeals at San Francisco,
sustained the INDUCTION and the case
reached the United States suprem ecourt
on appeal of the Nevada (Rickey) parties
from that affirmance.
The case is similar to that wherein
the waters of the Arkansas river we're
in dispute between the citizens of Kan
sas and Colorado some years ago. and
which was decided finally in favor of
Colorado The decision i'll that case,
however, was founded upon the pre-
sumption that the people of Colorado
would be more seriously damaged by a
decision against them than would the
people of Kansas.
In the present case, the court is ex-
pected to decide the ownership of the
waters of a river running through two
or more states and also the question
whether the courts of one state have a
right to render decisions affecting the
titles to land lying within another state.
Charles c. Boynton, attorney for the
the Rickev interests denied this right in
his argument today. He declared thai
the old question of state rights was
again involved in this case. 1t the pre-
cedent were established i'll this case, h'
asserted the courts of Louisiana or o
any other state lying along the lowe
parts OF tue Mississippi river, nigh
assume to regulate the sitles of lan'
living as far away as the banks of tn
Missouri river i'll Montana. Even tn
courts of Canada. he said, might asser
their right to take cognizance of tn
conditions in the United States affecting
land lying along streams which ho'
across the borders of the two countries
From the reading of the above we ar
of the opinion that the United State
Supreme court is expected to decid
whether the progressive principle
"usufructuary right to water, as matt
tanned in Nevada, shall supersede tn
dead antiquated and stagnating law {
private and absolute ownership OF wats
still recognized in Califprnia.
. We are confident that the Surepn
Court will sustain Judge Hawley's II
junction, and thus establish once for a
the principal of government ownersh1
: and control of all interstate water
, This will hit our beast OF the jungle
, the nefarious speculative water grabb
. hard knock OH the noodle.