White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1925-06-05
THE DECREE OF THE CASE OF
THE WATER RIGHT OWNERS
Eliza Hart Harvey

= y.
When the Hanford Irrigation and
Power Company was being promoted
the company, to avoid distrust of
prospective buyers, made declara-
ton Of trust was made in the mort
gage and published. This trust deed
made the land buyer part of the
Trust.
On the 9th day of September 1922,
a decree by Judge Rudkin was en-
tered herein, in favor of the plaintiff
(Conl ,any) and against the defend
ants (Settlers) his decree made the
company the owners and holders in
fee Simple Of the legal title to and is
entitled to possession of the property
hereinafter described, situated in the
Ccuntiea of Benton and Yakima, State
Of Washington. The Rudl1in decree
claimed the land owners. Of acquired
no right, leen, claim or : easement in
or to the source Of their water rights
or in or to the means Of instrument
tally of supply. The United States
Circuit Court Of Appeals reversed
this decision on the fifteenth day of
May, 1925 and the cause was re-
manded to the District Court with
the instruction to proceed in accord
ance with the opinion and decree of
the said United States Circuit Court
of Appeals. Why did they not pro-
coed as directed and whv did they
change the decree to almost identi-
caltv the same decree as given by
Rudlin in favor of the company. Per-
haps some will claim they did not,
here is what they sent lis for approval.
That the p!aintiH (Company) il the
/ owner and holder ifJ fee SIMPLE Of the
! legal title to and is. in possession of
the property hereinafter in this para
/ graph described situated in the coun-
ties OF Benton and Yakima, State of
Washington Then follows h DIES ,
cription of all the property of the
Black Rock Power and Irrigation
Company at Priest Rapids, its high
| tension transmission line from Priest
Rarids to Coyote Rapids and the Coy
ote Rapids pumping station PROPERTY.
The United States Circuit Court OF
| Appeals decided in favor Of the set
/ tiers saying, this suit involves all the
said instru-ne ntal:ties save the canal
system and the land on which it is
built. 1t further says; the trust deco
/ admits Of but one Interpretation; thai
the people had a right to aprurtenances
that the instrumental tiles. mortgagee
were no more to be eliminated from
the settler than were the land ane
water rights equally nortgagjl Il
further says the sale Of a perpetual
use of thing, is the sale of tn
thing, why were these items OF the
I Court of Appeal left, out of the pa
per sent here for our APPROVAL wher
they are positive proof of our rights
The Circuit Court further says, "Ad
verting to the circumstances: thu
settler wcs promoting an Irrigated
land Enterprise" The Circuit Cour
further says "We cannot agree tina
tie right created by the deeds o
purchase is a contractional pronais
! to deliver water by any means, ant
the orly remedy compulsory per
Torrance" Circuit Court says. ZAP
, rcllants (Settlcrs) deeds, adn::.sts'
: them in to the class of heneficiarie
) Of the Trust" The settlers bclon'
to the Trust: and the Company is tn
!, trustee of the Trust.
: The paper sent here for our. ap
: rroval signed by Judge Webste
e and written or approved by Judg
: Graves, gives the settler no right
/ at all executing delivery OF waite
]. to the land. Can anyone beiiev
e Judge Webster and Nudge Graves
a did not know the paper sent here to
e our approval was rsversion OF tn
: United States Circuit Court OF Ar
y reals decree in favor of the settlers
S Anyone who will study the Court {
h Appeals decree and the paper signe
e by Judge Webster and approved 3
s Judec Graves can easily see this "a
per is an exact reversion OF tn
=. Court of Appeals.