The Lamar register., 1911-03-22
STATE RIGHT TO ARKANSAS
RIVER WATER, QUESTION
Famous Kansas Colorado Fight Up
Again IN New Form. United
States Irrigation Company
Case Before Judge
Riher

Before Judge Riner in the United
States court is being heard a case
that Is one of the most important
in the way of irrigation litigation
that has come up in the west since
the famous Kansas-Colorado case
1t is the suit of the United States
Irrigation company ct al against
the Graham Ditch company ct al
and like the Kansas-COlOradc
suit, 1t involves a conflict between
Kansas and Colorado irrigationists
over the waters of the Arkansas
The suit. which seeks TO enjoin
the defendants. who include the
state officials Of Colorado and num-
erous Colorado irrigation corpora
lions and farmers. from diverting
waters of the Arkansas that flow
into headgates in Kansas forty
miles east OF the state line. came
up in court yesterday on a demur-
rer. II this demurrer be denied
and the plaintiffs contentious sus-
tained. attorneys for the defense
declare that the United States SUI
preme courts decision in the Kan
sas-Colorado case will. in effect.
be reversed. and that Colorado
will lose practically the whole
flow of the Arkansas river.
Plat Rogers. one OF the coun-
sci for the defense. declared in
court that all Issues in the suit
were decided by the supreme court
In the Kansas-Colorado case. and
for individual water appropriations
like the plaintiffs to urge claims
opposed to the decision of the
court was in direct contempt OF
that tribunal.
The plaintiffs. through John NJ.
Waldron. contend that their con-
tentions are in no way affected by
the decision In the Kansas-Colo-
RADIO case. because they were not
parties to that particular suit.
All the plaintiffs are Kansans.
They claim priority right to the
waters In dispute. For the state
engineer. his water commissioners
and other state officials to assist
the defendants in depriving them
of what they declare their right
they say is depriving them Of prop
erty interest without due process
of law and in violation of the con-
stitution.
In this demurrer the defendants
case on the ground that the Unit
ed States supreme court is the on
also urge the dismissal OF the
ly tribunal that has Jurisdiction
over the case. The state of Colo
RADIO they argue. should have been
made a party defendant to the
suit and without its presence the
suit cannot go on. They argue
that II Colorado had been made a
party defendant to the suit the
case would have to be dismissed
any psy. because the plaintiffs are
Citizens of a foreign state and the
eleventh amendment to the consti-
tuition saye citizens Of one state
cannot bring suit against another
state in any court except the United
States supreme court.
mot only does this cut into
the very heart Of the decision of
the United States supreme court.
but 1t strikes at the political con-
troll of the states property by its
properly elected state officials" de-
clared one of the attorneys for the
defense in his arguments.
Mr.. waldron in his reply to the
defense's contention said that 1t
was necessary TO name the state
officials individually as defendants
because they acted CONFORMITY with
the other defendants. He will con-
tinue his arguments this morning.
A large array of legal talent is
representing each side. Mr.. valid
ron. who has retired from active
practice. was persuaded to repre-
sent the plaintiffs as chief coun-
sci. The Importance of the suit
Is attracting to court q large num-
Der of attorneys.