Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Howevor, it is doubtful that the United States <br /> <br /> <br />S_e Court ...ul ever tll1 t~ oTOn-ule tho hOl.dl.ng <br /> <br /> <br />or the Winters ca.ae that, upon tho creat1?11 'J! a reserva- <br /> <br />tion by agreement with the Indians on arid lJmds prnoti~ <br /> <br /> <br />val.usless without Uription, there ill an impl1ec! reservation <br /> <br /> <br />at _tar tar irrigation. The question ill the amount or <br /> <br />extent or Buch reservation or water. <br /> <br />Parenthetically it should be aa1d that tho fact. <br /> <br /> <br />that. a large portion at t.ho lJmds 'IIi t.ld..'1 the Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />River basin were acquired from lIexioo, which recognized <br /> <br />no ril!l:>t of ocoul*flCY in t~e Indiane, doee not change the <br /> <br />rule of the llinterS eaee. The st.tempt. to <tlat.ingu1Jlh <br /> <br />t.ho Yll.nter.! cae. on thiB gTO"oo wa. considered and rejected <br /> <br />by the ninth Cu:cuit Cour'. of Appoala in U. s. v. r.aJJah' <br /> <br />- <br />River Irr. Diet.., Ilupra. In NortJDooostern Il<ulde at f'hO:Jhale <br /> <br />W1am, v. U. S. supra, there is also a disousa1w1 or the <br /> <br />Traty of ~dal<lo 'lliU. lIf:x1co. <br />1. reservation at _tor llOUl.d seom to exiat whether <br /> <br />or not there is a treaty or a~t. Such _8 the holding <br /> <br /> <br />in the Walker Irr. Dist. case, su~. It n.s there said <br /> <br />(lD4 ,. (2d) J35-JJ6)a <br /> <br />"The claim at the Govenll!lont, aseerted on <br />bebal! of the 1001008 living on the reserrat.ion, <br />ill that, to the extent. necessary to eupp],y the <br />1rr1gable lands, tile _tara of the st.rlwl were <br />re.erved. The tria]. oourt. decided that the _tara <br />1I8ra not re.erved and that t.'>e rights of the <br /> <br />0035 <br /> <br />~ <br />