The twice-a-week Twin Falls times. (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1916-1918, 1917-05-17
SALMON SETTLERS AWARDED
CONTINUED from page one)

ONE JUST DISCUSSED, but which
covers the point last noticed. is that
right was contemplated sufficient to
enable the settler to receive water at
the rate on one-hundredth of a second
foot per acre continuously during the
season of actual irrigation needs, the
amount of which the parties estimated
and understood to be two and three
fourths acre feet; and this view 1 am
inclined to adopt" This view which
Judge DIETRICH held to be in many
respects identical with the one which
he adopted, is the view which the cir
cult court has just taken.
The decision rejects the theory
which places all the blame on the
company The court says: 1.-THE con-
structiOn company, the settlers and
the parties who furnished the money
for the building of the system, re-
ceiving therefor the liens, authorized
both by congress and state are there
fore. each and all, charged with full |
knowledge of the laws and provisions
of the contracts"
Likewise, the court exonerates the |
company from the charge of fraud. 1t |
says There is in the record no |
evidence even tending to show any
fraud on the part of anyone connected |
with the undertaking. And, insofar
as concerns the construction company,
a compensation for the responsible
ties assumed by it and for its efforts.
could come only from the success of
til enterprise; so. too, in respect to
those who furnished monev with
which to build the works. their secur
ity for the money loaned depended on
it's success"
On the other hand the contention
is rejected that the participation of
the state. under the act of congress
in the transaction. in any way per
, mitted the issuance of patents by the
department of the interior until sat
, isfactory proof should be furnished
! that sufficient water was available
for the irrigation of the lands accord
ing to law Hence, the reasonable APP
, plication of the law, under the decision
, would seem to be that the company
must furnish the settlers one-hun-
, dredth second feet per acre up to the
: point where the lands should be suf-
q ficiently irrigated and no more. The
! court says: "The contracts of sale
by the construction company cannot,
=, in our opinion, be held to convey to
v the settlers a right to more water
than can be beneficially applied to
= the land agreed to be conveyed to
+ them. +
= "But we cannot at all agree to the
# contention on the part of the appel
v lants that no specific amount of wa
. ter was sold to the settlers; for turn
% ing to the contracts it is seen that the
! construction company did, by para
90 graphs ", VIII, and X Of its contract
~ with the state, in effect, expressly
If promise and agree that the water
10 | rights of the respective settlers should
- be one hundredth of n second foot pei
O acre for each acre Of land to be If
70 rigated: and by its contract made will
ID the settlers it distinctly agreed tina
- their respective water rights SHOULD
n be that specific amount, the certificat
- of stock in its holding and operating
company-the Canal comparatively
10 cred TO such settlers expressly declar
IN ing that it entities the owner thereo
10 to receive one hundredth of cubic
r., foot of water per acre per second o
n time for the irrigation of his land
a and also entities the owner to a pro
Al portiOnate interest in the dam, canal
a. water rights. and all other rights anC
,e franchises of the Twin Falls Salmon
r River Land and Water company, baset
f. upon the number of shares final.
ol sold in accordance with the said con
m tract between the said company ant
" the state of Idaho.
G. 1--WE therefore regard it as clear tina
D. the water rights the respective settler
le are entitled to under and by virtue o
IN the contracts of the parties are one
I'd hundredth of a cubic foot of water pc
n acre per second of time during the If
rigating season, with an incidenta
. proportionate interest in the dan
! canals, water rights, and all othe
rights and franchises of the cOnstruc
ton company, based upon the numbe
of shares finally sold in accordanc
with the contract between that com
pany and the state; such amount I
be measured to the users, as is eS
=, pressly declared in Paragraph Y c
ID. the contract between the state and tn
- construction company during TN
's' time the latter retains control of tn
q canal company at the main lateral
y of such irrigation system in sue
y quantities and at such times as tn
> condition of the crops and the weathe
u may determine but according to sue
rules and regulations, based upon
system of distribution of water
60 the irrigators in turn and by roti
o ton as will best protect and serve tn
"A interest of all in the canal system.
What the outcome of the declslo
will be. it is, of course, impossib
60 to forecast, since the representative
% of both sides here decline to make
- statement at this time. However,
= may be surmised that the matter wi
be taken up in court again with
view of securing the enforcement
the rights of the parties as interpret
by the circuit court While the ord
preventing the company from collec
ing for the water furnished uni
three-fourths acre feet should
available. was revoked, with the reve
sal of the decision on which 1t WI
based. it would seem clear that Il
company would be stopped from &C