White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1928-06-29
INTERVENTION PETITION
DIMIssED. BY COURT

The decision of Judge Webster in
the Federal Court in Spokane last
Saturday in denying the Intervention
and dismissing the petition filed by
some of the water right owners, is
just what every intelligent person in
the valley, at all familiar with the
case, expected.
Not only did Judge Webster dis
miss the petition as proceeding
without merit in the case or warrant
in law, but he gave the so-called
COMMITTEE" such castigation as is
seldom heard in court room. He
said that not only had one of the
water right owners attempted to get
into personal communication with
him for the purpose of discussing the
case but that newspaper clippings,
with marked articles purporting to
give facts concerning certain fea-
lures of the case, had been sent to
him, as we'll as a telegram assuring
him of the truth and accuracy of the
allegation in the petition and, in
effect, demanding to know in advance
how he attended to rule.s
This he cefined as an aggravated
form of contempt. He further said
that in all of his experience as a
Judge, first of the Superior court,
later of the State Supreme Court,
and since he had been judge in
the Federal Court, he had never
been subjected to such contemplate
actions as he had in this case on the
part of the offenders and he issued
a solemn warning that in the future
if any water right owner or. other
itigants attempted similar actions he
would Immediately have issued a
bench warrant for the arrest of the
guilty party or parties.
| Attorney H. N. Snively, who was
in court representing the petitioners,
offered no defense whatever for his
clients. Whether he felt he had any
defense to offer, he did not say.
In discussing the petition. Judge
Webster said that it was mcrstrous
to expect him at this stage Of the
receivership to turn the project, with
all of it's rarnifications and varied in
terests, over to a few OF the water
right owners. He said that the re-
cords show that Receiver Chase is
operating the properties for just
,, about half what it was costing the
companies; that he had known Mr..
Chase personally for many years and
knew him as man of the highest
honor and integrity and with ex-
ceptional ability in the work he was
doing as the receiver in this case.
Receiver Chase was in court forti-
sary, that water was being furnished
under his receivership for less money
than any other known pumping pro-
ject IN the state. These, aftidavits
net only show smaller cost here
hut the water furnished (eight feet)
is greatly in excess of that furnished
in most of the other projects.
Attorney H. N. Snively, represent
ing the petitioners, and Juese ]. c.
Lloyd, representing the receiver,
argued the case to the court. Elmer
E. Tocd of the firm of Donworth,
Todd and Tolman of Seattle, was
also in court, representing the COM
pan;es, but took no part in the pro-
ceedings.
A good part of the petition was
devoted to the 1928 maintenance
charge of SIS per acre, fixed earlier
in the season by the Court and the
receiver, which the petitioners alleged
was "exorbitant, confiscatory and un-
reasonable" Yet at the time of the
hearing last Saturday the receivers
records showed that all of the petit
TONERS, with the exception of four,
had paid their maintenance in full,
thereby, refuting their own allega-
ton that the rate was confiscatory.
All of the four who had not paid in
full had paid part of their mainten-
a,ice at that time and some of them
have made further payments since so
that at this time nearly all OF the
1928 maintenance has been collected!
Judge Webster said that the recei-
vership at best was but temporary
arrangement and that all of the fac
tors in the case made it imperative
that it be closed up as speedily as
possible. In this connection it
might be said that Mr.. Chase is hope