THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



ers voted for Baker and that these men 

 could not read the constitution in the Eng- 

 lish language but could read a translation 

 of it in Finnish. The question at issue, 

 which has been passed to the Supreme 

 court by the District court, was whether 

 the constitutional provision that "no per- 

 son shall have the right to vote who shall 

 not be able to read the constitution of this 

 state", required an ability to read it in 

 Englifeh. 



The Supreme Court has had the matter 

 under advisement since August 2nd and 

 has given it a most thorough investigation 

 In the opinion rendered by Justice C. N. 

 Potter, in which Chief Justice Conaway 

 and Justice Samuel T. Cain concurred, it 

 is held that the meaning of the phrase. 

 "The Constitution of the State," must be 

 determined from a consideration of its 're- 

 lation to the language in which the con- 

 stitution was written and adopted by the 

 people of the state, and finally published. 

 The English language is the language of 

 the country in general and in common use 

 and in that language the constitution was 

 written. A translation would be only a 

 reproduction of the principles of the con- 

 stitution and not a copy of the instrument 

 itself. It has been held in New Jersey 

 and Louisiana that a translation of a law 

 is not the law nor a copy of it. A stat- 

 ute is only endowed with authority in the 

 language and word^ in which it is passed: 

 The courts would not be authorized to re- 

 sort to a translation for the purpose of 

 construing or enforcing a law and it must 

 be held that when the people used the 

 term, "the constitution of the state" they 

 meant the particular instrument which 

 they had adopted as such constitution and 

 that instrument was in the English lan- 

 guage. 



The court therefore holds that no per- 

 son is entitled to vote who can not read the 

 constitution in the English language, un- 

 less he was a voter at the time of the 

 adoption of the constitution or is physi- 

 cally unable to comply with constitutional 

 requirements. 



The decision unseats a number of coun- 

 ty officials who were elected by such vote 

 and gives their places to democrats. 



AN IMPORTANT LAW SUIT. 



The case of the Crawford Irrigation 

 Company against Leroy Hall and others 

 has been referred by Judge M. P. Kin- 

 kead, to the Nebraska State Board of Ir- 

 rigation. The court dissolved the tempor- 

 ary injunction granted the Crawford Com- 

 pany and denied the application for a 

 permanent injunction by Leroy Hall. The 

 case is one of the most important ever 

 brought in Northwestern Nebraska. 



This case was brought about two years 

 ago by the Crawford company for the pur- 

 pose of testing its right to the use of the 

 waters in White river. Since that time 

 the Crawford company has made vast im- 

 provements by building over twenty-five 

 miles of ditches and several large storage 

 reservoirs. It is said the company has ex- 

 pended already nearly $50,000 in making 

 these improvments. There are about thir- 

 ty or forty defendants, nearly all owners 

 of property adjacent to the river below the 

 point where the company is alleged to have 

 diverted the waters of the stream. The 

 principal defendant is Leroy Hall of 

 Crawford, who contests the right of the 

 Crawford company to the use of the water 

 by reason of a prior right, which he claims 

 by right of prescription. 



Aside from the thousands of dollars of 

 property rights involved in this case, it is 

 important by reason of the constitutional 

 questions which will necessarily be de- 

 termined. Much interest is manifested 

 throughout this district. Judge Hamer of 

 Kearney is chief counsel for the Crawford 

 company and with him are associated Coun- 

 ty Attorney Allen G. Fisher and local 

 Crawford attorneys. Hon. Samuel Max- 

 well of Fremont, assisted by Judge A. W. 

 Crites of Chadron. represents the princi- 

 pal defendants. 



The Crawford company will appeal to 

 the Supreme Court on the ground that the 



