The Greeley tribune., 1911-10-26

and fundamental distinction.
think they can. In way II may '<'
said TO h, the difference in funcooh
between a savings hank and ~ hsanN
Of ordinary deposit In tire one
hank the sensible man places Tor
safe keeping and convenience TIE
u,.ney he needs for his ordinary ana
necessary living expenses In u,e
other he carefully lays aside ms
surplus savings for future. inSe.t-
m..nt or use in old age. or in SICK
ness. or To fall hack upon II being
Iatnring man or woman when from
arxiueut or temporary lack OF em-
ployuent he or she would otherwise
sufYer want or even become depend
ent on Others. But suppose man
through this praiseworthy effort TO
Droyide for the future finally from
habit becomes a miSer and depfive>
himself Of the actual necessities oa
a decent and civilized existence.
nourishing food and comfortable
clothes. Don't We all regard him
as an insane old fool? Well, can't
Won all se,. that on the same Prin-
ciple il the state allows the re>er-
yoir companies to impOund the
water OF the public streams for fu-
ture use. just because il may and
probably will n. needed next year
or the year after and at the same
time deprive> those Of its citizens
who need the water and will GER
tainly suffer for the want of il THIS
year and for the use of crops grow
ing NOW that that is an equally
:eh rv~SSarvV
ceeding on the part Of tie state and
for that reason the poorest Kind OF
public policy?
Now You may assume that there
are already too many bitches. and
might assume that there are already
too many reservoir schemes for the
good Of the state. II there are al.
ready too many OF either perhaps we
had better forbid their future con-
struction. But until this is done 1
am opposed to this or any other law
which will permit a reservoir Of any
date to deprive during the irrigat-
ing season any ditch of any date Of
the use of its water
for direct irrigation of soil or crops.
I understand MIR. Jacobs to be-
lieve the Law Of 1901 ought to be
Mr.. Baker says it never
had any business among the laws
and according to . cOncensus OF
opinion among his brethren of the
legal fraternity is unconstitutional
in any event. I am NO lawyer as 1
said ut the outset, but / do not be-
Iieve anything of the kind in the
irst place, and in the second place
That is . matter for the supreme
,ourt to determine and l am opposed
o its repeal.
Now IL happens singularly enough
hat just about the time the senator,
whO rs chairman Of the senate COM
nittee on ''irrigating investigations"
Nd advised in his report that the
laws of the state "shOuld be
eft DECIDEDLY alone he discovered |
. new light and promptly thereafter |
this bill which IL It shall |
lnally prevail will work infinite
hardship to all bitches with junior
Then by very
ingular coincidence just about the
inle the Carpenter bill became =
aw Judge Gamble rendered \ de- |
isaoa which takes OF In favor of the |
-eservOirs from six weeks to two
months of the time for actual irri.
,ation as practiced by all the canals
without dispute or objection In this |
,art Of the state under color Of &C
ually enacted law for nearly .
luarter Of = century (see statute OF
lSo3).
/ hope now that entertain .
proper respect for our Legislative
our legal luminaries
and above all for our judges ON the
bench: but I shall nevertheless eN-
press my honest conviction in clos
ing this paper that the Carpenter
bill is wrong in principle: that bot
that law and Judge Candles de-
cisiOn, though without that intent.
tend to subvert right and justice.
and that the one ought to he re-
pealed by the people and the other
Very respectfully submitted.
j. MAX CLARK.