344 THE 1RR1GA TION A GE. 



for their growing crops, their condition is pitiable. This year will 

 certainly be long remembered in this Rio Grande valley as one of a 

 great scarcity of water. Furthermore, such a condition as this may 

 be expected every year until some arrangement can be made by which 

 the flood waters of the Rio Grande may be stored in a reservoir for 

 purposes of irrigation and in this way restore to Mexico and to this 

 part of the United States the rights which have been denied them 

 through their having been deprived of water for their crops and 

 animals." I. A. BARNES, El Paso, Texas, May 25, '99. 



THE OTHER SIDE. 



' 'Inasmuch as the result of the Elephant Butte dam decision as 

 handed down by the Supreme Court as briefly mentioned in dis- 

 patches received here could not be clearly understood by the lay 

 mind the Herald requested an expression of W. A. Hawkins, one of 

 the attorneys representing the Elephant Butte dam company in 

 reference to same and Mr. Hawkins stated as follows: 



Until the text of the decision of the Supreme Court has been 

 substantially known to me I of course cannot be certain of what the 

 complete legal effect is. So far as indicated in the synopsis of dis- 

 patches and private telegrams received from our attorneys in 

 Washington who argued the case before the Supreme Court the 

 decisions of the courts of New Mexico are not however, reversed, but 

 simply modified in one feature which would not now appear to be of 

 any material importance and which modification should cut no figure 

 with the building of the dam and the irrigation system connected 

 therewith. The point which the dispatches indicates as being the 

 only feature with reference to which the decisions of New Mexico are 

 modified is this: It was claimed by the government that the con- 

 struction of the dam and the storage of water thereby would sub- 

 stantially interfere with navigation of the Rio Grande river near the 

 gulf. This was one of the contentions of the government only, there 

 being a half dozen others. All of the other contentions, it would 

 appear from these dispatches, have been either against the govern- 

 ment or considered immaterial. With reference to this one contention 

 the reported decision would make the supreme court say in effect that 

 in event it is established, as a matter of fact, that if the plans of the 

 company would when carried out substantially effect the navigation 

 of the river as that navigation exists then to that extent the company 

 must be enjoined and the lower court is directed to determine that 

 one question of fact, and to enjoin the company therefrom. There is 

 no injunction to be issued against the building of the dam or the 

 irrigation system connected therewith, but the effect will be, if the 

 synopsis of decision can be relied on, simply to prevent the company 

 after it may have constructed works from holding or diverting such 

 water of the river as would if allowed to flow on substantially 



