THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



245 



RIGHTS OF USERS TO WATER OF CORPORATION. 



A water company or corporation may appropriate and 

 divert the waters of a stream for the purpose of sale, 

 rental, or distribution for any beneficial use or purpose, and 

 in such the case the, appropriation belongs to the ditch com- 

 pany, with a perpetual right of use vested in the users and 

 consumers to whom the water has once been delivered, and 

 such perpetual right so vested in the user or consumer can 

 only be defeated by failure to pay the annual water rents 

 and comply with lawful requirements in relation to the use. 

 Farmers Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist. Su- 

 preme Court of Idaho, 94 Pacific 761. 



IRRIGATION OF PUBLIC LANDS. 



Where a contract between plaintiff, the state of Oregon, 

 and defendants, for the reclamation of certain desert lands, 

 depended for its validit3' on Act. Cong. Aug. 18, 1894, c. 301, 

 28 Stat. 422 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1554], as amended by 

 Act July 11, 1896, c. 420, 29 Stat. 413 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 

 p. 1556], and Act March 3, 1901, c. 853, 31 Stat. 1188 [U. S. 

 Comp. St. 1901, p. 1557], providing for the reclamation and 

 irrigation of certain parts of the public domain to be con- 

 veyed to the states on performance of certain conditions, and 

 that, before such act, there could have been no dealings be- 

 tween the parties with reference to the subject of the con- 

 tract, an action by the state to annul the contract because of 

 defendant's failure to comply therewith was one arising solely 

 under the laws of the United States, and therefore removable 

 to the federal courts. State of Oregon v. Three Sisters Irri- 

 gation Co. U. S. Circuit Court, District of Oregon. 158 

 Federal 346. 



APPROPRIATION. 



Where a defendant in a water suit, brought for the pur- 

 pose of determining priorities of appropriators, answers the 

 complaint, and also files a cross-complaint, in which he sets 

 up his claim to a certain quantity of the waters of the 

 stream and pleads the facts entitling him to a decree estab- 

 lishing his rights, and he raises no objection to the insuffi- 

 ciency of description of the lands to be irrigated as con- 

 tained in the complaint, and in no way calls the matter to 

 the attention of the trial court, and a decree is entered de- 

 scribing the lands to be irrigated both by the plaintiff and 

 the defendants and all the parties to the action in the lan- 

 guage of the complaint and the cross-complaints, any insuffi- 

 ciency, error, or defect in the description must be first raised 

 in the trial court, and called to the attention of the court 

 entering the decree, before it can be considered on appeal, 

 and in case of appeal any error assigned by the appellant in 

 reference to such defective or insufficient description will 

 be held to have been participated in and invited by the 

 appellant, and he will not be allowed a reversal of the judg- 

 ment on account thereof. Farmers Co-operative Ditch Co. v. 

 Riverside Irr. Dist. Supreme Court of Idaho, 94 Pacific 761. 



FEDERAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER IDAHO STATUTE. 



The statutes of Idaho provide that one desiring to appro- 

 priate water from a stream must apply to the state engineer 

 and obtain a permit ; that, in case a stated part of the works 

 has not been completed within a certain time, an after appro- 

 priator from the same stream may petition the state engineer 

 for a revocation of the permit, and that officer, after investi- 

 gation, shall either cancel the permit and notify the holder or 

 refuse to do so and notify the petitioner; that, in either case, 

 the party feeling himself aggrieved may appeal to the district 

 court of the county in which the point of diversion is situ- 

 ated, making the other party defendant, and filing a petition 

 and a copy of the petition to and decision of the state engineer. 

 There is no further provision as to pleading or procedure. 

 Held, that, after such an appeal has been taken, the proceed- 

 ing in the district court is a "suit of a civil nature at common 

 law or in equity," of which a Circuit Court of the United 

 States is given concurrent jurisdiction with the state courts 

 by section 1 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 

 470, c. 137, as amended by Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 

 552, and Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433 [U. S. Comp. 

 St. 1901, p. 508]), and therefore removable under section 2 

 where the other requisite jurisdictional facts exist Waha- 

 Levriston Land & Water Co. v. Leiviston-Sweetwater Irriga- 

 tion Co. U. S. Circuit Court, Idaho. 158 Federal 137. 



OUR GROWING CIRCULATION. 



As we are going to press with our June number we 

 are in receipt of a letter from one of our canvassers in 

 the far West who sends us in from one county alone 

 172 new, yearly, paid in advance subscribers. This is 

 an indication of the way our circulation is growing 

 throughout the western field, and should be an incen- 

 tive to advertisers who are looking for trade in that 

 western country. One hundred and seventy-two new, 

 paid subscribers in one mail rather exceeds our weekly 

 average for the past several months, and is very grati- 

 fying to the publishers. Please remember that among 

 this list there are, no doubt, many who are possible pur- 

 chasers of agricultural implements, wagons, pumps, 

 windmills, gasoline engines, spraying machinery, and 

 and there are no doubt many among them who are 

 looking to other localities with a view to purchasing 

 land. It is a well known fact that the irrigator who 

 establishes a farm and makes it increase in value from 

 its initial cost, say from $25 ~to $40 per acre up to as 

 high as $200 or $300 per acre, is willing to let go at 

 that figure and reinvest in larger tracts in a newly 

 developing section. An illustration of this is that fact 

 that the original purchasers of land along the north side 

 of the Twin Falls tract in Idaho were from the older 

 irrigated sections of Washington, Montana, Oregon 

 and Utah. These people went into these states at an 

 early day, secured land and water at a low figure, had 

 developed their farms so that they were producing good 

 incomes and were marketable at a very much higher 

 figure than the average farm land. Many of the people 

 who early moved into the Twin Falls tract sold their 

 farms in Washington and Montana for from $150 to 

 $300 per acre, and purchased land in the Twin Falls 

 tract at about $35 per acre, thereby leaving a nice bal- 

 ance for improvements or investments elsewhere. There 

 are many hundreds of this class of people among our 

 readers and land men should take advantange of that 

 fact and place before them a statement of the projects 

 which they wish to market. 



THE IRRIGATION AGE should be the best land ad- 

 vertising medium in this country, and we urge land 

 men to give it a trial. An advertisement carried in its 

 columns sometime ago of a large tract of land in the 

 Northwest, some 7,000 acres, produced a buyer within 

 thirty days from the time the number containing the 

 advertisement was issued, and netted the seller some 

 $3.00 per acre on that lot. It can readily be seen that 

 transactions of this kind are profitable, and should 

 encourage others to patronize our columns. 



