OCR Text |
Show ARKANSAS RIVER LITIGATION 497 able owner and has power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting its property. We do not mean that its legislation can override state laws in respect to the general subject of reclamation. While arid lands are to be found, mainly if not only in the Western and newer States, yet the powers of the National Gov- ernment within the limits of those States are the same (no greater and no less) than those within the limits of the original thirteen, and it would be strange if, in the absence of a definite grant of power, the National Government could enter the territory of the States along the Atlantic and legislate in respect to improving by irrigation or otherwise the lands within their borders. Nor do we understand that hitherto Congress has acted in disregard to this limitation. As said by Mr. Justice White, delivering the opinion of the court in Gutierres v, Albuquerque Land Company, 188 U. S. 545, 554, after referring to previous legislation: "It may be observed that the purport of the previous acts is reflex- ively illustrated by the Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388. That act appropriated the receipts from the sale and disposal of the public lands in certain States and Territories to the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands. The eighth section of the act is as follows: " 'Seo. 8. That nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use: or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream or the waters thereof: Provided, Th&t the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right."; But it is useless to pursue the inquiry further in this direction. It is enough for the purposes of this case that each State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters. [Citing cases.] * * * * * * * It may determine for itself whether the common law rules in respect to riparian rights or that doctrine which obtains in the arid regions of the West of the appropriation of waters for the purpose of irriga- tion shall control. Congress cannot enforce either rule upon any State. * * * * * * * In the argument on the demurrer counsel for plaintiff endeavored to show that Congress had expressly imposed the common law on all this territory prior to its formation into States. See also the opinion of the Supreme Court of Kansas in Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kansas, 206. But when the States of Kansas and Colorado were admitted into the Union ibey were admitted with the full powers of local sovereignty which belonged to other States, Pollard v. Hag an, [3 How. 212]; Skivelp v. Bowlby, [152 U. S. 1] ; Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U. S. 508, 519 |