« ZurückWeiter »
pretend to say that it appeared first any place other than in the United States.
I do know that a third system of water rights, called the "concession system" which was not the riparian system, and not the appropriation system, prevailed in the public streams of ancient Rome, and prevails today in the public streams of continental Europe.
It is a system by which the state, in the exercise of sovereign jurisdiction, makes grants of water to be used on lands that may be riparian or may not be, but which grants have absolutely nothing to do with any appropriation made on the part of a private appropriator. They are grants in the nature of franchises.
The system that once prevailed in Mexico may have been of that character. The system which prevailed in the southwest, before the American days, may have been of that character. We know that the system could not have been restricted to riparian lands, but as to whether it was an appropriation system or a concession system, I am not prepared to state.
One thing more, Judge Hayt said that possibly the Grand Junction decision may be reconciled. My information came wholly from Mr. Ward. He informed me that the decision was upon two grounds. First, upon the ordinary grant of appropriation, construction work having been commenced, although full application or use had not been made. The other, and the more important, ground, and the one which Mr. Ward informed me was the real controlling consideration, was the fact that the Government had taken a step which constituted a reservation of the waters, and that the Government being the owner of the waters did not need to make an appropriation. Any act by which the Government proclaimed that it would hold this water for its own constituted a reservation from private appropriation. Upon the latter ground Judge Cavender decided that the waters not yet appropriated in the State of Colorado belonged to or were subject. to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
If the chair were not the chair he would say in his humble judgment the Supreme Court has never held that the State is entitled to an equitable portion of the water of an interstate stream, but that on the contrary, the Supreme Court has held that each. State is entitled not to an equitable proportion of the water of an interstate stream, but to an equitable exercise of its sovereignty as against a similar exercise of a sovereign power of an adjoining State, and that the logical theory is that one State is entitled to the waters of any particular interstate stream, dependent upon the conditions that exist in either State, dependent upon climatic conditions, dependent upon all of the surrounding circumstances that lead to the application of the doctrine of equitable exercise of sovereignty of one State as against a similar sovereign right in another State.
But as the chair is the chair, it has no right to express itself upon the subject! (Laughter.)
Harry E. Kelly:
Reference was made to section eight of the Reclamation Act as though certain rights were created by that Act.
It was the contention of counsel for the Government that section eight creates no right but merely prescribes procedure.
I want to suggest this, that in the printing of this discussion in the proceedings it all be put together. I think it is a matter of great interest to the Bar and should appear in that way.
Gentlemen, shall we proceed with the election of officers? You have heard the report of the Committee on Nominations. What shall we do with it?
I move that the nominations be closed and that the Secre
tary be instructed to cast the vote of the Association for the candidates whose names have been placed in nomination.
Thomas J. O'Donnell:
I second the motion.
This motion was carried unanimously, and the persons whose names were reported by the Committee on Nominations were declared duly elected to the respective offices for which they were nominated.
The chair will appoint Mr. O'Donnell and Judge Gunter to escort Judge Stimson and the other newly-elected officers into the presence of the Association.
Thomas J. O'Donnell :
The committee reports that neither the president-elect nor the first vice-president-elect or the second vice-president-elect can be found. It has been suggested that the president-elect might be downstairs, but I tried downstairs yesterday, and there was nothing there. (Laughter.) Therefore I have the honor of introducing to your acquaintance and favorable consideration our newly elected Secretary, Mr. Wadley. (Laughter and applause.)
Gentlemen, my little song is sung. It is needless to say that it has been a great pleasure to me to have helped with the work of the Association during the past year. Whatever aid my service may have been in accomplishing much or little, whether for good or for ill, is for your conclusion. So far as I am concerned, I only want to thank you again for the honor of election which you bestowed upon me last year, and now to express my thanks to all of you for the cordial co-operation which has been given to me, and to bespeak for Judge Stimson your heartiest support in all matters. (Applause.)
The meeting thereupon adjourned sine die.
The Annual Dinner of the Association was held at the Antlers Hotel, Colorado Springs, at 7 o'clock p. m., Saturday, July
President Dubbs presided, and following the dinner introduced as the toastmaster, Mr. T. J. O'Donnell.
The following gentlemen responded to toasts: Charles E. Southard, Fred D. Stanley, and W. L. Dayton; to informal call: David P. Strickler, Samuel H. Kinsley, and E. C. Stimson.`
(The paper on "Potential Colorado," read by Mr. Stanley. will be found in the Appendix.)