Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/493

 464

The Green Bag

an appropriation is an interest in fee in the public lands equal to any subsequent patent of riparian land, on the 'free exploitation' theory that an appropriator on public land never was a trespasser, but it is and always was treated as actually a guarantee in fee of the federal government. . . . "Both Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States joined in this theory, and it is the foundation of the 'California Doc trine' of Water Law of the Public Domain; the term 'appropriation of water' means, in California and the states following the his torical basis, such a title (and only such) as, because acquired on public land under the federal policy of free rights in the public domain, is valid against a riparian owner where (and only where) the riparian patent issued subsequent to the appropriation. "As the law developed since 1866, actual documentary patents were issued by the United States to lands and to mines. This has never been done regarding waters, but the theory is as though it were. As to the yet undisposed of water on public lands, there would hence appear, under this historical theory, a field for federal legislation, pro vided it repeals or modifies the guaranty of free appropriation (under local rules) con tained in the Act of 1866. Congress has actually exercised its power recently in pro viding that 'riparian rights' shall not exist in the Black Hills. "This theory, however, is in force only in states following the 'California Doctrine.' In the other states the 'Colorado' or 'Wyoming Doctrine' is (with the sanction of the Supreme Court of the United States in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46), adopted, and the his torical theory is not in force. The federal jurisdiction and title are denied, and there is instead an elaborate state organization which has assumed absolute control over all waters within their borders. Under the decision in Kansas v. Colorado it is difficult to see how the policy of conservation can be carried out by federal action in these states." Attention may here be called to a demogogic article which, though of no value, is of some interest in connection with the fore going:— "The Trust that Will Control All Other Trusts." By John L. Mathews. Hampton's, v. 23, p. 201 (Aug.). This gives a clear picture of the impending tyranny of the water power trust. One of its methods of self-aggrandizement is this:— "Open the pages of 'Moody's Manual' or any other list of these corporations and you will find the word 'foreclosed,' or the statement 'obtained by foreclosure,' after the name of many of the water or steam power concerns owned by the grabbers. The word repre sents their favorite method of gaining pos session. In Carolina they have worked this as a fine art. They have developed the excel lent and usually legal game of taking the local capitalists into partnership with them. They adopt them into financial brotherhood,

and use local money for the construction work. Then they freeze out the unnecessary stockand bondholders, and seize the plant. ' Miscellaneous Articles of Interest to the Legal Profession Biography. Cleveland. "Grover Cleveland: A Record of Friendship." By Richard Watson Gilder. Century Magazine, v. 78, p. 483 (Aug.). "Mr. Cleveland always insisted upon this— that if right political policies were simply and clearly put before the American people, they would generally make a wise and honest deci sion. He was sometimes discouraged; but I do not think he was ever fundamentally shaken in his belief. He realized that there might be long periods of indecision or mis take, but he looked forward to a final satis factory outcome. "He was encouraged in his view by various occurrences in his own public career, for he often did a right but risky thing; and instead of losing by it his popularity and influence were strengthened. It was so with incidents in his relations, for instance, with Tammany Hall. His letter, when Governor, to the Tammany leader in New York, protesting against the support by Tammany of a certain silver-tongued, but, ethically speaking, annoy ing member of the legislature, increased a personal enmity, but was only another proof to the public of the Governor's fearless recti tude." Gaynor. "The Austerity of Judge Gaynor." Current Literature, v. 47, p. 151 (Aug.). "Judge William J. Gaynor, who has just caused such a commotion in the police depart ment of New York City, is not a man given to jesting. He is even described as mirthless and smileless. Look upon his counterfeit pre sentment and you will see austerity writ large on every feature. He cracks no jokes in his court, he laughs not at those the lawyers may crack. He takes life seriously and lives it earnestly. He is no sour cynic, not at all. His faith in the power of an idea and his con fidence in the righteous intentions of the people are a splendid tonic; but if he were the husband of the heroine in 'What Every Woman Knows,' we have an idea she would have to work even harder than in Barrie's clever play to get the saving guffaw that finally comes from her hard-headed Scotch spouse." Knox. "Knox—'Able Citizen.' " By Ed ward G. Lowry. Putnam's, v. 6, p. 527 (Aug.). "Mr. Roosevelt told him that he wanted him to accept the vacancy caused by Justice Brown's retirement. Mr. Knox declined, leav ing the way open for Attorney-General Moody to scale the dizzy height. When Justice Shiras retired, the tender of his seat in the Supreme Court was made to Mr. Knox by