Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1911-07-01
FAMOUS CASE UP
ON APPEAL.

4 "a CdS0 WHICH ilUL Only is one CT
the nest important proceedings in
tha history OF litigation involving ir-
rigaaion enterprises in general i'm Ida
no, but also vitality affects the whole
future Of the Mountain Home project,
Is that Ct Heary Hewitt, Jr., plant-
It'll and appellant, against the Great
| Western Beet Sugar company and
about one hundred others, as defend
ants and respondents, i'm which tram
sarpt ON appeal was filed yesterday
ia the supreme court. The respond
ents include an army OF water right
holders, mortgages and mechanics
hen claimants.
Two big questions must be settled
by THE higher court, which will form
Important preeedents in irrigation law,
not only Tor Idaho, but for the whole
country in witch such projects are
prosecuted,
9A man question, howt,cf, which
i Immediately vital arises out of
u following sitlaroa. After How
took his ntrtgage and 1t was
placed en- record the company pro.
ceeded to sell water rights as It Lad
before. The question arises as to
VII ther those water rights must be
recognized by Hewitt as being claims
superior 70 his mortgage.
Briefly Explained, the conditions
with relation to the future Of the
project are as follows: 1t appears
that John Fl. Garrett the prime NOV
ef in the Great Western Beet Sugar
company originally mortgaged the
system to Hewitt, the amount being
about $l12,000. Then Garrett went a.
head and sold water rights, i'm some
Instances al far lower cost than
what they We're worth. For instance,
u is said he would SELL $40 water
right fof $40, or $40, or SIS, according
TO the gravity Of the extremities In
which he found himself at tne time
when hills plans were going to pieces.
lie sold out the capacity of the sys-
team, and there was enough water for
onlg q small part Of the rights sold.
Would BE White Elephant.
Now, it Is ayerred that ii the water
rights sold subsequent to the making
Of the mortgage are held prior claims
10 he mortgage, the whole system
Wlll 30 to pieces and any satisfactory
reorganization would be impossible,
Tor the reason that no investor would
come an at the sheriff's sale, under
foreclosure Of this mortgage, and take
over the system, IL he had to recog-
hi2e all Of the water rights sold in-
Discriminatory by Garrett, for the
simple reason that in most cases the
amount paid for these rights was only
Il small fraction of what the rights
Wefe hald for And for that reason,
20 fs said, no investor would take O.
Vef lhe system and develop III and
,&tend iIis capacity because 1t would
pc only a white Elephant" as far
as he was concerned.
In as present state most of these
water right holdcrs have nohtang,
aHawaG, because there is mo water
t@f them, and so their land is use-
i9$s a compromise has been sug-
Ee4ed whereby such right holders
might get credit on new water rights
sold under a. plan which assumes
s aFtlng with d clean slate. But at ds
held by some that the only adequate
remedy would be to absolutely wipe
cat all Of those water rights sold af-
t2f the mortgage was recorded. Then
an investor could take over the sys-
~, develop it, extend the capacity,
sell enough water rights to cover
caA of construction and still make a
profit
ll1asrnueh as such a proposition dis
imply o hard business matter and
pot q hanauitarian philanthropy, it
to some that this PLAN to
wipe out such water rights and start
anew y the only feasible one at
yt- Ht, 1T is said.
Big Array Of Counsel.
9h acaount Of the vital legal issues
D. stake, aus well as the serious mat
.ar q the future Of the Mountain
Home project, and the conserving OF
.a@ &eNa Of Innocent water right
purchasers, and the great number Of
fla,. parties, this case has at
acted considerable public attention,
.1d Pie great array of counsel named
tb Transcript for the one hun
q and mere respondents promises
l.e ,ly contested proceeding i'm the
ctme colart
I9aH9 a, N. soIHs, ]. Fl. Rich
d5 aad q @ faga appear for Hem
ite#a Plaintiff and appellant.
W. numerous counsel for the arm