Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/590

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES knowledge and acquiescence of the owner of the fee and continued the publication of a newspaper for a period of more than twenty years. On these facts the court held that the original pub lisher acquired more than a license revocable at the will of the owner and was entitled to exclusive use of the land, terminable only at his death or on ceasing to publish the newspaper; further more, that the owner was estopped to interfere with the rights of the transferee while he con tinued to publish a newspaper in the building erected on the land, and that as the transferee had claimed the right of occupancy openly and adversely to the owner who had not questioned his right he acquired an easement in the premises protected by the statute of limitations, so long as as he continued to publish the newspaper. WATERS. (Irrigation — Riparian rights of States.) U. S. S. C. — In the case of Kansas v, Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. discussed at length in Mr. Costigan's article in our issue of October, 1905, the state of Kansas sought to prevent such use of the waters of the Arkansas River in Colorado as would diminish the flow of waters of the river in Kansas to the injury of the people in the latter state. An attempt was made by the United States to inter vene on the ground that the flow of the river way subject to the superior authority and supervisors control of the national government. The right of the national government to intervene was, however, denied without prejudice to the govern ment's right to intervene in case it becomes neces sary for the preservation of the navigability of the river. The court holds that the reclamation of arid lands is not one of the powers granted to the national government. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, there were no large tracts of arid land, and noth ing which called for any further action than that which might be taken by the legislature of the state in which any particular tract of such land was to be found. The Constitution, therefore, made no provision for a national control of the arid regions or their reclamation. Since that time the country's borders have been extended and extensive tracts of arid lands which ought to be reclaimed have come within the domain of the United States. The court remarks that it may well be that no power is adequate for their reclamation other than that of the national government, but the court says if no such power has been granted, none can be exercised. However, as to arid lands in the territories, the court notes that Congress either by virtue of the second paragraph of section 3 of article 4 of the Constitution, or of the power vested

555

in the national government to acquire territory by treaties, has full power of legislation, subject to no restrictions other than those expressed or named in the Constitution, and, therefore, may legislate in respect to all arid lands within their limits. As to arid lands owned by the government within the boundaries of the Western States, the national government has power to dispose of such lands and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the same, but in doing so, it cannot override the laws of the state in which the land is located. The right of the state of Kansas to maintain the suit is sustained on the ground that the state is not acting directly and solely for the benefit of any individual citizen to protect his rights in bringing the suit, but to protect the rights of the public at large, as beyond its property rights, the state has an interest as a state in the large tract of land bordering on the Arkansas river, the prosperity of which affects the general welfare of the state. The court, therefore, con siders the controversy as rising above a mere question of local private right, and as involving a matter of state interest, which must be consid ered from that standpoint. The main question is as to whether the state of Colorado may use the waters of the Arkansas • river for irrigation purposes, and if so, to what extent such use may go. In other words, the question arises as to whether the common law rule of riparian rights should govern or the doctrine of the appropria tion of waters. The court recognizes the right of each state to prescribe the rule applicable within its domain. As the state of Kansas has recognized the right to appropriate waters of a stream for irrigation purposes subject to the. condition of an equitable division between ripa rian proprietors, the court holds that she cannot complain if the same rule is administered between herself and a sister state. As to the extent to which the waters may be used, the court is of the opinion that the dispute must be so adjusted on the basis of equality of rights as to secure as far as possible to Colorado the benefits of irrigation without depriving Kansas of the like beneficial effects of a flowing stream. In this connection, the court notes that while certain portions of Kansas may suffer from a diminished flow of the stream, other portions in the vicinity may be benefited by the increased cultivation of lands in Colorado, and that thus the injury to part of the lands in controversy may be more than out weighed by the benefit to other portions. Thus the court notes that since the commencement of the cultivation of the eastern part of Kansas, the area of cultivated and profitably cultivated land has extended from 1 50 to 200 miles further west