Los Angeles daily herald., 1886-06-26
rnr 1nn1aArons Ar woRK.

The convention Of irrigators which met
in this city last week drew attention TO
the vital necessity of establishing appro-
priation as the rule in this State. IL
might have been wished that the atten-
ance had been more general. San fran
cisco's prosperity depends on the fruit
fulness Of the back country, and that
fruitfulness Is impossible II the riparlans
are going 10 carry their point. Without
water California has probably reached
the limit of her productive capacity and
Of her population. With water it would
not be out OF the way TO look for popu-
latiCn OF 1000, 900 or 5 100000 in the next
decade, and it is impossible to set a limit
to the possible product of the State.
That is the case in nutshell.
The prevailing opinion among the
speakers at the convention was that all
that is necessary is to elect members oil
the Legislature pledged to amend the
Code SO as to declare the common law OF
England inapplicable to this State in the
matter Of water distribution. We regret
that we are unable to concur in this view
1t is highly desirable that the Code
should be amended and that the water
ways OF the State, like the highways,
should be declared to be the property OF
the people at large, dedicated to public
use. But this is not all that is needed.
If tomorrow riparian rights were abol-
ished by Act of the Legislature, riparian
owners could still claim that they had
acquired-before the passage Of the abol-
ition Act--vested rights which no Legis-
lature could take away. This is ques-
tion of law which no well-read lawyer
can decide otherwise than as we have
stated it. 1t follows that the appropria-
tors cannot accomplish their object until
the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case Of Lux VS.. Haggin has been re-
versed by the tribunal which pronounced
it. 1t is absolutely Indispensable to the
future interests of the State that the SUI
premc Court should reconsider its de-
cision.
The present bench may do so, II the
recent application for rehearing in the
Lux case is granted. II the application
be not granted, or if, on rehearing, a
majority Of the Court adhers to its late
views, there will be nothing left to the
people but to reconstitute the Court az
fast as vacancies occur. We are free to
admit the improperly Of choosing Judges
who are pledged beforehand to decide
controversies in a certain way. But
there is no alternative. The people OF
the United States were confronted by the
dilemma when Roger B. Tany, with the
concurrence of majority of his brethren,
decided IN the Dred Scott case that a
negro was not a citizen and had no rights
which white man was bound to respect.
1t became necessary to reconstitute the
Court in order TO secure rule OF law in
harmony with public opinion and it was
so done. We shall have to pursue the
same course now. The State cannot af-
ford, it will not consent to live under the
ruling OF the Supreme Court in Lux vs..
Haggin; II the present bench will not re-
verse it, we shall have TO elect Judges
who will. The future prosperity OF Cali
fornia cannot be suffered to be ruined
through the crotchets OF Judges who
seem incapable of taking a common-sense
view OF the law.--[5. +. Chronicle, May
25tb.