5 THE BEE. THAT JORDAN CANAL DECISION. The other day The Bee took occasion to review the action of the Supreme Court of this state in the Jordan Canal case, and said in the course of its criticism that the law and the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Zane, were hard to reconcile. The Bee called attention to the fact that Lawyer Zane was of appellants counsel and that appellant won; thi.t Judge Zanes logic was lame ; that his review of the case did not compare with that of the court below in law or common sense ; that the decision would work a hardship on many farmers and that the action of the court appeared to be an act of injustice. The Tribune rushed to the defense of Judge Zane and his associates, Justices Miner and Johnson, (Judge Bartch, having admitted that he was interested in the outcome, was incapacitated from sitting in the case) and declared that a free people should accept with equanimity and without abusive personalities the decisions of their courts, and especially their courts of last resort. The fact that Arthur Pratt is expected to take his case to the Supreme Court in the event of an adverse decision in the District Court may not have influenced the Tribune to any great extent when it gave utterance to the admonition above quoted, but the Tribune files show that it has not always accepted with equanimity and without abusive personalities the decisions of courts whether of last resort or otherwise. The Deseret News of last Saturday evening published an article written by some one who certainly understands the matter and appreciates the position in which the unfortunate farmers along the Jordan are placed by the action of the Supreme Court The article in the News says : The Bee in the first issue of that bright and pungent weekly, supports the position taken in the communication which appeared in the News, but the Salt Lake Tribune makes the following editorial remarks on the subject : The indecent personal attacks being made upon Judge Zane in the matter of the recent canal decision causes one to wonder what the assailants would have. Do they really want the doctrine established in Utah that a canal of pure water used for culinary and irrigation purposes can, with impunity, be defiled and ruined by a subsequent enterprise? If that is the idea, it is one that the people of Utah would find insupportable and calamitous There was no new doctrine declared in that decision, as some pretend, as the purpose of basing their scandalous personalities, but merely the restatement of an approved doctrine of the courts of Western states in like eases. A free people should accept with equanimity and without abusive personalities the decisions of their courts, especially their courts of last resort, What it meant in the foregoing by indecent personal attacks and scandalous personalities is difficult to discover, seeing that no personal attack of any kind appears, either in the communication to the NewTs or the comments of The Bee. It cannot be fairly denied that the decisions of courts are open to public criticism, especially when they are utterly opposed to the facts on which such decisions are supposed to be based. The notorious eight to seven decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, although now hoary with age, is commented upon throughout the nation in no gentle language, and even its years do not create for it any respect in the minds of millions of the American people. The decision now under discussion is no more exempt from public comment and newspaper discussion than that. The Tribune wants to know whether the thousands of persons injured by the canal decision really want the doctrine established in Utah that a canal of pure water, used for culinary and irrigation purposes, can, with impunity, be befouled and ruined by a subsequent enterprise? That question betrays a total misconception of the whole matter in controversy, and if the court based its decision ou such incorrect premises, it is not surprising that the order was issued against which there is so much complaint. It is not the doctrine declared in the decision that is criticised, it is the assumption of a state of affairs which the testimony before the lower court showed had no existence, that causes so much amazement and dissent. It is very easy to understand how a court could enunciate legal doctrine and yet by a misapplication of that doctrine, through a misunderstanding of the actual facts, perpetrate an injustice, to the surprise and irreparable damage of the people interested. It must be remembered that Judge Norrell, The plaintiff company clamed a grant to take water from the Surplus canal under a deed dated December 9, lSSfi. The validity of that so called grant is disputed by the defendant companies, but, as Judge Norrell decided, if the alleged deed and grant were valid, it is clear to the court that plaintiff took under and subject to all the rights of the owners of the Surplus canal. So that intead of a canal of pure water for culinary and irrigation purposes being befouled and ruined by a subsequent enterprise, the facts are that a canal constructed primarily and used continuously for drainage purposes, was subsequently tapped by a company, the successor of which now appears as plaintiff in this case, and claims that lands watered by its system, are damaged by mineral deposits from these waters. Thus the facts are the very reverse of those set forth in the Tribunes query, and if the decision of the Supreme court was based on similar misinformation, it is not entitled to be received with the same equanimity which the Tribune, the courts apologist, claims for it. who in the District Court rendered a decision which the Supreme Court has overruled, had before him not only the facts and arguments presented on both sides, but also the witnesses on whose testimony the facts were arrived at. He thus had personal opportunity to investigate thoroughly the circumstances and conditions surrounding the entire case, while the Supreme Court had no witnesses before it, and, therefore, could not as well determine what wras the preponderance of evidence as could the trial judge. Now the question is, did that testimony show that the North Point Irrigation Company had a canal of pure water, used for culinary and befouled and irrigation purposes, which was No The ruined by a subsequent enterprise? proofs were clear and positive that the Surplus canal, from which the plaintiff company claimed a right by contract to take water, wag constructed for the purpose of carrying off surplus waters that inundated the southwestern portions of Salt Lake City, and that the drainage canal was also constructed for the express purpose of draining the lands lying in the western and southwestern portions of Salt Lake county. It was for this reason that Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, as corporations, each contributed the sum of 1 $6,000. Armstrong testified to this effect and also that the intent and purpose of constructing the Surplus canal was also to carry off Elias A. Smith sewage from the city. testified that the investment in the drainage ditch by Salt Lake County was to relieve the lands above and adjacent to it of surplus waters, and of draining a chain of lakes whose natural Numerous flow was into the White Lake. witnesses testified to the same facts, and it is a matter of public notoriety that the Surplus canal and the drain ditch were constructed at considerable cost for these special purposes, and that they were so used, the drain ditch in May and the Surplus canal in June, 1896. Judge Norrell so decided, as he was bound to do with the evithe dence before him. He decided also that use of the Surplus canal by the owners for the drainage of lands along the Jordan river, as expressed by the articles of incorporation, is a reasonable use and enjoyment of the property, and one as to which the plaintiff cannot be heard to complain, because it took, subject to all the rights of said owners. If it were otherwise, then plaintiff by such action as this could and would defeat the plainly expressed purpose and intention for which the owners of the canal expended their labor and laid out their money. Ex-May- Ex-Judg- . e The truth is, that the lands which it is claim-ardamaged by the water flowing from the plaintiff companys system and obtained by it from the White Lake and the Surplus canal, contain in their own composition the deleterious substances which render them unfit for cultivation. This was proved beyond a reasonable question by the testimony of reliible witnesses, who attempted their cultivation as long ago as I860, when it was found that the first year a fair crop could be raised but subsequently the efflorescence became worse and worse until nothing could be produced, and the land- were abandoned as not being worth the government price. It was shown that the application of pure river water aggravated these conditions, bringing to the surface of the land the mineral substances with which it is impregnated, and there being no, means of drainage, there was no remedy for the evil. These facts wrere testified to by such unimpeachable witnesses as A. F. Doremus, GeoB. WTallace, Walter Brown James T. Cochrain, Ben Harmon, William Spicer, William Crow-theFred Schoenfeldt, Robert Hazen, William Langford, etc., corroborated by such competent chemists as Professor Jos. T. Kingsbury and Professor Hirsching. e - r, The strong remarks which have been made by persons who know of these facts are not surprising, when it if known that the defendant canal companies had the uninterrupted use of drain ditch and Surplus canal, for the purposees for which they were constructed, for at least ten years, are now required by a decision of the Supreme court to abandon such use and fill up the drain ditch, for the benefit of a few individuals owning worthless lands, and who want to collect damages from the defendent companies, as is believed by many, to compensate those few individuals for an unfortunate and unwise investment in worthless acres. There is no desire to attack any judicial dignitary or tribunal, or to indulge in scandalous personalities, but the public mouth is not to be muzzled ; and the thousands of bona fide settlers who feel outraged by the latest decision on this matter are not to be silenced by any pretense of exalted sanctity designed to screen a branch of the public service from deserved censure. Til H Bee is the best medium for advertising the city. It reaches the best homes, is read by the best people, and talked about all week.