OCR Text |
Show 784 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS been proved, if the use of the Little Walla Walla were less than it has been. The chief points of junction with the main river are below the intake of the canal where Gardena is privileged to tap the waters of the stream. No evidence brought to our notice by either of the parties car- ries with it a suggestion that other Oregon priorities would be cut down or displaced if the Gardena priority wTere established to the full. We need not go into the question more fully at this time. The case comes down to this: the court is asked upon uncertain evi- dence of prior right and still more uncertain evidence of damage to destroy possessory interests enjoyed without challenge for over half a century. In such circumstances an injunction would not issue if the contest were between private parties, at odds about a boundary. Still less will it issue here in a contest between states, a contest to be dealt with in the large and ample way that alone becomes the dignity of the litigants concerned. A decree will be entered confirming the report of the Master, and dis- missing the complaint upon the merits, the costs and expenses of the suit to be divided between the parties in accordance with the usual practice. Michigan v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 295, 319, 320; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 583. It is so ordered. |