White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1926-03-05
SETTLEMENT OF WATER
CASE. MAY Be DELAYED

UHOL WhI u DLLHiL IL
In a ruling handed down February
% the Circuit Court of Appeals at
San Francisco, overruled the motion
of the Black Rock Power & Irriga-
ton company to dismiss the appeal of
about fourty of the Hanford water
right owners, appealing from the de-
cree of Judge Webster in the case of
the, Black Rock Power & Irrigation
company against the Hanford water
right owners, to quiet title.
Judge Webster's decree was en-
tered in the Federal Court on May
IS, 1925, following and based on his
Interpretation of the opinion of the
Circuit Court of Appeals rendered on
April 81, 1924.
The original case was brought by
the Back Rock Power & Irrigation
company against the Hanford water
right owners and was tried in the
Federal Court at Yakima. Judge
Rudkin decided in favor of the Black
Rock company, holding, in effect
that the lien Of the water right own
ers on the property of the successors
of the old Hanford Irrigation &
Power company was merely that of a
common carrier to deliver water.
From this decision the water right
owners appealed to the Circuit Court
of Appeals who reversed the Rud-
kin decree in the Federal Court. The
Circuit Court held that the property
was trusteeship and should be ad-
nainistered as such. The Black
Rock company appealed from this de-
c;sion to the Supreme Court of the
United States but this appeal was de-
nied by the higher court. The opin-
ion of the Circuit Court was then
+, sent down to the District Court with
instructions that a decree be entered
by Judge Webster in accordance with
the opinion.
After Judge Webster entered the
decree there was some dispute among
the water right owners as to whether
it carried into effect the intentions of
the Circuit Court, and about 40 of
them secured the services of Attorney
H. ]. Snively Of Yakima to prosecute
an appeal to the Circuit Court to de-
termine this. The Black Rock COM
pany then filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal because of irregularity in
the service of the appeal. 1t was
this motion that the Circuit Court
overruled on February %. This
means that the appeal will be heard
on its merits.
In everything the motion to dismiss
the Circuit Court ordered that a cita-
ton issue from the court, instructing
Mr.. Snively to submit his reasons for
asking that the Webster decree be
reversed and gives him until April /,
1926, to make his showing. Under
the rules of the court, the other side
is given certain time after that date,
probably 20 o. 80. days, to enter its
appearance. This joins the issue and
the case then can be heard when the
court and the parties are ready to
hear it. Under the usual procedure
this will require between three and
sig months and possibly longer if
either party is inclined to drag it out.
Some of the water ri h owners
think that an attempt will now be
made to magnify the importance of.
the recent ruling of the Circuit Court
to shake them down for more attorney
fees to prosecute the appeal.
In its next decision the Circuit
Court may uphold the Webster de
cree, holding that it. carries out the in
tentions of the original Circuit Court
opinion, or they may reverse it and
the next decree may be either better
or worse for the water right owners.
In any event, the possibility of set
t'ement of the controversy is bound
to be delayed unless those appealing
withdraw their appeal and stand on
the Webster decree.
In the end the water right owners
and the Black Rock company are the
only ones who can bring about set
t'enent. The courts can determine
the legal status of the different par
ties, but that is all. There are many
reasons for believing that both par
ties would like to see real settle
ment worked out and while that de-
sire exists it would seem that every
thing be done that can be. Before
the water right owners can be pre-
pared to present their side they will
have to have certain information re-
gardinr the pro able cost Of ie-
facilitating the entire irrigation sys-
tenn to put it in first class condition
and made large enough to furnish
sufficient water to all the land below
it; to have the land carefully cruised
SO as to take only the best; and to
possess themselves of other impor-
tant data. This will have to be done
no matter what the Circuit Court
does to the Webster decree. Cooper
ating with the Milwaukee railroad,
the committee representing the water
right owners are willing to do this
pending the determination OF the APP
peal if the water right owners desire
it.