Year: 1878

The Water Of the Los Angeles Riv.r for Irri.


gation-Tho City Of Los Ang les VS.. Bald,
win


While the people of Los Angeles
differ respecting the means where
by this city can exercise exclus.
I've control OF the water of the river,
they are agreed that the interests
and welfare of tho inhabitants
would be greatly promoted If all
conflicting claims to the water
could be extinguished.


An expensive suit, the one above
named, has been for some time
pending in the State Courts In an
effort to prohibit the owners, or
some Of the owners, OF the Feliz
ranch from using the water of the
river. While this suit is still pend
Ing In Court, and proba bly, under
the impression that the decision
will be adverse to the city, the pur.
chase by the city of the Baldwin
Interest in the Feliz ranch is sug-
gested as the best means for acquir.
Ing the control Of the water.
If the defendants in the pending
suit could convey to the city for u
reasonable consideration all inde-
feasible right to all the water of the
Los Angeles river, it would, per-
haps, be better policy 10 make the
purchase than to further prosecute
the claim in the Courts of law. But
Ii the Court should decide in favor
of Baldwin, or the city, by pur.
chasing, should recognize the claim
OF the owners of the FeIiz ranch TO
the use OF the water, on the ground
that their land adjoins the river,
then the right of all other prophet.
ors OF land along and on either side
or the river to the use of its water
must be admitted, and consequent
ly the purchase of the Baldwin
claim would only be the beginning
of an indefinite number of purcbas.
es. The area of land which can be
irrigated by the water claimed
by Baldwin is considerable,
and there cannot be q
large volume of water advanta-
geously used upon the Baldwin
land, while on the opposite side of
the river from the Feliz and Proyi-
dencia ranches there is q large
body of land of the Verdugo ranch,
over which the water of the Los
Angeles river can be conducted.
This body of land is of sufficient
area to use all the water Of the
river flowing along its border, and
the right to water all this land, If
enforced, would compel the people
to abandon irrigation within and
below the limits of the city, or to
purchase this vslueless tract Of
land.


Tn this view of the matter, the
purchase Of the Baldwin part Of the
Feliz ranch as the means of ac-
quiring the control of the water is
OF questionable expediency, and
the policy of striving to attain that
end through the Intervention of
the courts deserves deliberate con-
sideration.


The fact is notorious and unuues.
tionablo that from the settlement
and organization of the Pueblo of
Los Angeles until the acquisition
of California hy the United States
the municipal authorities of Los
Angeles exercised full anu exclus-
i've control, for irrigating purposes,
of all the water of the river from
its source down to aud within the
town or city of Los Angeles. This
right Of control over the water of
the river was derived from the laws
and ordinances of Spain and Mex
loo.


BY the treaty between the United
States and Mexico, in which Cali
fornia was oeded to the United
States, the latter stipulated to re-
spect and guarantee all rights and
property which had been conferred
by Spain and Mexico In the ceded
territory. In accordance with the
provisions Of that treaty the grants
of lands to individuals, the rights
of the church ami of municipal
corporations to lands, have been
respected aud recognized. The
claim Of Los Angeles city to II
large tract OF land was reeognize,..
and affirmed by the United States
courts.


| The Constitution of the United
States says: "rhe judicial power of
the United States shall extend to
all cases in law and equity arising
under this Constitution, the laws OF
the United States and treaties
made under their authority


AS the claim Of the city to the
control and use of the water of the
river is derived from rights ac.
quired from and under the Spanish
and Mexican governments, which
rights are secured to the holders by
treaty stipulation, it would seem to
follow that the United States
Courts have Jurisdiction of this
claim, and are the tribunals which
should determine the question In
controversy.


If such is the case it may be bet


ter policy to prosecute the claim of
the city in the courts, and prepare


the case for removal to the United


States Courts than to now attempt
to acquire that control over the
water which the best interests of


the city require by the purchase oil
the land. 1t w