CONCLUDING SUGGESTIONS. 65 



bardy particularly, than this, that the selfishness of grantees in perpetuity of water has been one of 

 .the most serious obstacles to the development of irrigation. Acting on the principle that they had a 

 right to do what they liked with their own, they were in the habit of suspending arbitrarily the sup- 

 plies of water disposed of by them to other parties under subordinate grants, of increasing as they 

 thought fit the prices to be paid, and, in a word, of pushing to its utmost limits the right of absolute 

 property purchased bj- them from the State. But an agriculture founded on artificial irrigation can 

 not advance as it ought to do under such an arbitrary system. (Vol. 2, pp. 137 and 138. ) 



The holders of ancient grants in perpetuity have occasionally asserted an absolute right of 

 property in the water thus granted to them, but the legal tribunals have invariably rejected such 

 claims on the ground that the grants were made for the general good of the country as much as the 

 special advantage of the grantee. (Vol. 2, p. 259. ) 



Because of this experience it has been found necessai-y, in order to 

 secure the greater development and prosperity of irrigated agriculture, for 

 the Italian Government to purchase a large number of these early and 

 important grants in order that the State might reassume a compiehensive 

 and effective control of the streams. 



CONCLUDING SUGGESTIONS. 



It is a significant fact that the gentlemen engaged in this investigation 

 should have agreed in their recommendations re^ardino- legrislation. Beino- 

 in accord with their views that the framing of imgation laws is a State mat- 

 ter, and agreeing with the general features of the system recommended, no 

 separate recommendations in this paper are required A few suggestions 

 are offered regarding the practical operation of these recommendations 

 should they become laws. 



JUKISDICTION OF SPECIAL TRIBUNAL. 



Should a special tribunal be created to define existing rights, that 

 tribunal should have exclusive original jurisdiction of this matter. It will 

 not do to create such a tribunal and still leave the way open to litigate 

 rights to water in the courts. Whoever is given control of this matter 

 must have exclusive control. The party who files on a homestead must 

 make his proof in the United States land office. He can not apply to the 

 coui-ts for a patent. If he could, demoralization in land matters would be 

 prompt and certain. In the same way, if parties can elect whether they 

 will go to the courts or go before a board of control, the board of control 

 will be worse than useless. Suppose there are ten appropriators from a 

 stream, if nine elect to have their rights settled before the board of control, 

 and one goes into coui-t, there will be two sets of priorities and unending 

 complications as a result. A double jurisdiction can not be jjermitted in 

 this matter anj'^ more than a railroad can be successfully operated with two 

 presidents to direct its policy. 



23856— No. 100—01 5 



