OCR Text |
Show -15- 7. Wo vitiating infirmity being here shown in the proceedings preliminary to the La Plata River Compact or in its application, the apportionment made by it between Colorado and New Mexico of the water of the La Plata River could not be held to deprive a Colorado appropriator of any vested right, even though a ri^ht had previously been adjudicated to him in a water proceeding in a court of that State. P. 108. 8. The assent of Congress to the La Plata River Compact between Colorado and New Mexico does not make the compact a "treaty or statute of the United States" within the meaning of § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, and a decision of the state court against its validity is not appealable to this Court, P. 109. 9" A claim based on the equitable interstate apportionment of water, like one based on the proper location of a state boundary, is not within the provisions of § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code. P. 109. 100 The decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado in this case, restraining the State Engineer from taking action required by the La Plata River Compact, denied an important claim under the Constitution and is review- able by this Court on certiorari under § 237 (b) of the Judicial Code. P. 110. lit Whether the water of a stream must be apportioned between the two States through which "it flows is a federal question, upon which neither the statutes nor decisions of either State can be conclusive. P. 110. 12« That the States which are parties to a compact are not parties to the suit and can not be made so, does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to determine the validity and effect of the compact. P. 110. 101 Colo. 73; 70 P. 2d 81+9, reversed. Counsel for Parties. Appeal from the affirmance of a judgment requiring water officials . of Colorado to permit diversion of water from the La Plata River by the respondent Ditch Company, notwithstanding contrary provisions of the La Plata River Compact. Appeal dismissed; certiorari granted* Messrs. Ralph L. Carr and Byron G. Rogers, Attorney General of Colorado, with whom Messrs. Shrader P. Howe11, R. F. Camalier, and Jean S. Breitenstein were on the brief, for appellants* Mr. Charles J. Beise, with whom. Mr. Reese McCloskey was on the brief, for appellee. Attorney General Cummings filed a memorandum by which he sought to maintain that, within the meaning of the Act of Aug. 2I4., 1937* °» 75ht 50 Stat. 751, this Court is "a court of the United States" and the state compact here in question, approved by Congress, is an "Act of Congress |