The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1923-04-05
WATER HEARINGS
WERE POSTPONED
Humboldt River Adjudication Pro.
ceedings Attacked by Techni-
cality Method and Time Out
Declared for Decision

Proceedings in district court in
this city concerning the hearing of
protests against the adjudication
findings for the Humboldt river
basin, which promised to furnish
interesting news for a month to
come when court opened last Mon
day, were brought to an abrupt
conclusion Monday evening when
District Judge G. A. Bartlett Of
Reno took under advisement the
various contentious of lawyers for
protestants. Thereafter it was ten
tatively agreed that the case shall
be taken up again on or about
May ID or 15, at which time the
judge will make known his findings
in the several contentious.
In this way the opinions of those
who believe that the case is one to
be long drawn out through a maze
of legal proceedings are at least
partially substantiated, but there
are other attorneys who are still
firmly of the opinion that the delay
is temporary and that when prelimi-
nary details are worked out the
adjudication will be closed within
short time.
1t appeared early Monday that
Judge Bartlett was determined to
lose no time if he could avoid it,
for when attorneys moved to dis
miss the case on the grounds that
this court has no jurisdiction, in
that some of the lands involved are
located in other counties and in
other judicial districts, the judge an
nounced that such questions might
Just as well be settled from the
start. With that the attorneys
went into details concerning their
points, with the result that the
judge decided that the only recourse
was to adjourn for a period of
time which would permit him to
look up authorities cited and pre-
pare an opinion of the several OBJ
jections offered.
Samuel c. We'll made the OPEN
ing and principal argument for the
adjudication protestants, being fol
lowed by Perry Evans, William M.
Kearney, L. b. Wittchen and Judge
J. A. Langwith. Attorney General
M. A. Diskin and George B. Thatch-
er argued for the state. In his
argument, Attorney We'll brought
in the contention that the original
water law under which the adjudi-
cation was made is unconstitutional,
besides questioning the jurisdiction
of this court to hear the matter in
any particular. Other points made
were that proper service of notice
was not made upon the various land
owners affected and that the form
of the state engineers determina-
tions was improper. Other conten-
tions were made, all of which can
be classed under the general head
of demurring upon technicalities.
The arguments were of sufficient
weight, however, to cause the judge
to go into the merits fully, and it
was for this purpose that the ad-
journment was taken.
The, next questions are, what
will happen if the judge decides this
court does have jurisdiction and
the other contentious of protestants
are not of sufficient weight to post
pone further action. Will the at
torneys then Immediately appeal to
the state supreme court? But if
the judge rules that the protestants
are right and consequently throws
the case out of court, what then?
There are many angles that will per-
NIT of great delay if the protestants
see fit to take advantage of them.