Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />67 <br /> <br /> <br />,r <br />, <br /> <br />not an unreasonable condition, therefore you will be allowed a <br /> <br />sufficient quantity of water to meet your needs, which would in- <br /> <br />, <br />clude necessarily the amount they are compelled to deliver under <br /> <br />their contract. <br /> <br />Mil. DLVIS: I think the court ~ossibly, as a matter of guess <br /> <br />work, would decide precisely as the Supreme Court of Colorado <br /> <br />decided, where there was an attempt to obtain adjudication of water <br /> <br />from the Colorado in New Mexico, and they refused to do it. <br /> <br />JUDGE SLOl~N: Was that a c ondi tion ulJOn whi ch the Colorado <br /> <br />use'was already enjoyed? <br /> <br />MiL Di~VIS: It was a long continued diversion in Colorado, <br /> <br />\,: <br /> <br />by which the Colorado Court refused to recognize any appropriation <br />'outside of Colorado. <br /> <br />. <br />JUDGE SLOLN: I think a court would allow a diversion of the <br /> <br />Colorado liiver for use of water in Mexico direct, but in order ,to <br /> <br />enjoy its own establishQd rights, if that was necessary, the <br /> <br />court might fix the amount of water which might be diverted. <br /> <br />Mu. DLVIS: I do not believe a Mexican land owner will go <br />into a court of the United States and compel the delivery of water <br />to that Mexican land. I doubt it, is what I mean. <br /> <br />JUDGE SLOl,N: I agree. <br /> <br />MiL Dl,VIS: I doubt if the same result coule, be obtained by <br /> <br />indirect action. <br /> <br />JUDGE SLObN: Except a court would take this into consider- <br /> <br />". <br /> <br />ation - except a refusal by the court would mean refusal to grant <br />relief to its own suitors - thai's the only consideration that <br />could lJOssibly effec t 'the 'si tuo.ti on adverse ly to us. <br /> <br />'~ <br />