 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1910 - 2132 pages
...Winters v. United States, 207 US 564, 577, 28 Sup. Ct. 207, 212, 52 L. Ed. 340, where the court said: "The power of the government to reserve the waters...under the state laws Is not denied, and could not be. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 US 690. 702 [19 Sup. Ct 770, 43 I* Ed. 1136]... | |
 | Electronic journals - 1915 - 880 pages
...apparently strong in his belief that the disposition of the waters is in the federal government, said: "The power of the government to reserve the waters...under the state laws is not denied and could not be." In Boquillas Land 6* Cattle Company v. Curtis, 1 '* wherein the controversy was as to whether a riparian... | |
 | Commonwealth Club of California - California - 1916 - 722 pages
...waters." 1908. Winters v. United States, 207 US 564, 52 L. Ed. 340, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207 (Montana). "The power of the government to reserve the waters...under the state laws is not denied, and could not be." 1908. Hudson County Water Co. v. McCorter, 209 US 349, 52 L. Ed. 829, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529 (Neu< Jersey).... | |
 | Colorado Scientific Society - 1908 - 418 pages
...Winters vs. US, 207 US 564 (a case decided subsequently to those above mentioned), said: "The powers of the Government to reserve the waters and exempt...under the state laws is not denied, and could not be." Justice Brewer, who wrote the opinion in the case of Kansas vs. Colorado, dissented from this opinion.... | |
 | United States. Congress. House. Committee on Indian Affairs - Federal aid to Indians - 1914 - 718 pages
...and irreparably damaged." Notwithstanding these claims, the Supreme Court in that case held that— " The power of the Government to reserve the waters...the State laws is not denied and could not be." The Supreme Court further held that there was an implied reservation for the benefit of the Indians of... | |
 | United States - 1914 - 908 pages
...apparently strong in his belief that the disposition of the waters is in the Federal Government, said: The power of the Government to reserve the waters...under the State laws is not denied and could not be. In Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis et al.8 (1909), wherein the controversy was as to whether... | |
 | Electronic journals - 1915 - 884 pages
...apparently strong in his belief that the disposition of the waters is in the federal government, said: "The power of the government to reserve the waters...under the state laws is not denied and could not be." In Boquittas Land &• Cattle Company v. Curtis,16 wherein the controversy was as to whether a riparian... | |
 | Irrigation - 1915 - 392 pages
...sees fit, and may withdraw it from appropriation. The Supreme Court of the United States has said, "The power of the Government to reserve the waters...and exempt them from appropriation under the State law is not denied, and could not be." It is provided in the Reclambation Act that the title and management... | |
 | United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - Water-power - 1916 - 54 pages
...the same argument that they advance against the intention of the Government to reserve the waters. The power of the Government to reserve the waters...US, 690, 702; United States v. Winans, 198 US, 371.) In the case of Camfield v. United States (167 US, 518), the court declares: While we do not undertake... | |
| |
The power of the Government to reserve the waters and exempt them from appropriation under the State laws is not denied, and could not be. 
