OCR Text |
Show -19- attempting to disregard, ignore or set aside the decrees of this (District) Court for the distribution of water in accordance with the decrees, is unconstitutional and void" in violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution and of § 25 of the Constitution of Colorado. The District Court overruled the objection; found'in substance the facts stated above; held that the Compact justified the action of defendants; and entered a decree that the bill be dismissed, each party to bear its own costs. That judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State (one judge dissenting), La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch, Co. v. Hinder- lider, 93 Colo. 128; 25 P. 2d I87. The opinion declared: "There is not the slightest pretense, either in this compact itself or in the proceedings leading up to it, to a decision of the question of what water Colorado owns, or what water New Mexico owns, or what their respective citizens own. It is a mere compromise of presumably conflicting claims, a trading therein, in which the property of citizens is bartered, without notice or hearing and with no regard to vested rights." An appeal to this Court was dismissed for want of final judgment below. Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 291 U. S. 650. The case was then retried by the UistrictOourt on the same pleadings and evi- dence; and,, pursuant to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Colorado, a decree was entered which, after reciting in substance the facts above stated, declared; "6. That the said La Plata River Compact, entered into between the States of Colorado and New Mexico with the consent of the Congress of the United States of America, does not constitute a defense to the actions of said defendant water officials complained .of by plaintiff, and is not avail- able to said defendant water officials, as a legal defense or justification, for their acts in closing and shutting down the headgate of plaintiff and in depriving the said plaintiff, thereby, of its right to the use of the waters from said La Plata River for irrigation purposes, as provided by the terms and provisions of said decree of adjudication of January 12, I898.1' The decree specifically: "(3) Enjoined and commanded (the defendants) to permit the diversion through the plaintiff's headgate (of) water for plaintiff's ditch in ac- cordance with the terms of said decree at any and all times when there is water in said stream to which said decree, under its terms and conditions would apply: ..." This second judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State; an additional opinion being delivered by the court, andL a dissent by a different justice. 101 Colo. 73; 70 P. 2d 8^9. An appeal to this Court was allowed by the Acting Chief Justice of the State.3 *The first judgment in the trial court was entered June 16, 1930; the |