The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1916-06-20
SUPREME COURT DfGDES
IMPORTANT WATfR CASE

Copies of the decision of the Su-
preme Court of the United States up
holding the constitutionality of the
Oregon water law arrived in Carson
City and are now at the office of At
torney-General Thatcher being stud
led in connection with the attack up
on the constitutionality of the Neva-
da water law. The Nevada act is draft
ed from and identical in many res
poets with the Oregon law the consti-
tutionality of which was upheld by
the Supreme Court of the country,
and even where differences occur be-
tween the two acts the principles in
volved are similar.
The principal difference between
the laws of the two states is that in
Oregon the powers and functions are
exercised by a water commission,
while in Nevada they are exercised
by a state engineer. There is also
some difference in the procedure, but
it is of a minor nature and not fun
damental in any respect.
The Pacific Livestock company, a
California corporation, which contest
ed the Oregon law, is also a large
landowner in Nevada and is fighting
the law here. In the Oregon case the
company contended in part that the
law was unconstitutional and violat-
i've of the fourteenth amendment to
the Constitution, by depriving citizens
of their property without due pro-
cess of law, in that old appropriations
of water we're compelled to prove
their water rights before state COM
mission and paying fees in connec-
ton Herewith. That the state COM
missioners, which is an administrat-
i've board, exercised judicial functions
in the finding and ascertaining of the
relative water rights along the vari-
Gus streams. That the state could not
ascertain nor compel citizens having
old appropriations prior to the enact
ment of the law to come under its
workings.
The questions raised are similar to
the points raised under tht attack on
the Nevada law in the suits now pend
ing before Judge Harrington and the
Supreme Court in the Oregon court
found adversely to the contesting
company on every point.
Under the Oregon law, which is
similar to Nevada, public notice is
| given that at certain time the state
will begin the adjudication or ascer-
tanning of rights on certain stream
Referring to this section of the law
the Supreme Court in the Oregon
opinion says:
"All claimants are required to ap-
pear and prove their claims no one
can refuse without forfeiting his
claim, and all have the same relation
to the proceeding. 1t is intended to
be universal and to result in a COM
plete ascertainment of all existing
rights, to the end, first, that the wa
ters may be distributed, under public
supervision, among the lawful claim
ants according to their respective
rights without needless waste or con-
| troversy; second, that the rights OF
all may be evidenced by appropriate
certificates and public records, always
readily accessible, and may not be
dependent upon the testimony of wit
nesses with its recognized infrmities
and uncertainties, and, third, that the
amount of surplus or unclaimed wa.
ter, if any, may be ascertained anG
rendered available to intending appro
priators.'
In referring to the question of the
| character of the proceedings the
Court approving quotes from In r,
Willow IA Oregon 592, holding tha
the findings of the state water com
mission are not final in their charac
ter, but only prima facie final Fur
that, that the state may commit The
preliminary proceedings in ascertain
ing the relative water rights within
| >~~~--a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~
| SunerIor u,uUrwV @~,