Los Angeles daily herald., 1886-10-31
WHITES REPLY.
s On the water supply
0f Los Angeles.

y s On the water supply
of Los Angeles.
tye Editor of the 9riJune-Sir
evening my attention was called to
ticle in your issue of the 23d, in
h you attack me upon the ground
my views upon the water question
ot in harmony with the interests OF
part of the State, and You say: 'If
not an impertinent question to ask,
Il the feelings of Mr.. White will
Be hurt by it, the Tribune would
to know how he stands on the
r question"
In will not blame me if j have
doubts of your tender regard for
eelinps. and if the article which l
TO is a sample of your candor l
no idea that / will be able to pro-
f,om YOU fair presentation Of
yisws. even after they are commu-
led. To begin with, you have
led the article from which you
Il to have procured my opinion on
subject. You attribute to me the
bwing: "As general rule property
ater cannot be acquired by appro-
zion, but only by grant or prescrip-
. This expression occurs in an
view which was had with the re-
er of the Los Angeles Times, and is
q stated to have been the doctrine
bunced by the Supreme Court of
state at an early day. You will
the precise words in an opinion de-
red by Chief Justice Murray, on
I4l Of the Eighth California Re
4, If you had taken the trouble to
Ltbe interview to which / allude,
yld have found that | quoted a
Not decisions, all to the same
and All showing that the Supreme
sof this State, from its organiza.
the present time, has recognized
htence OF riparian rights. | was
aling with the policy of the law,
hat until changed, must remain
de; so you see the expression
" ,5vou criticize was mere extract
an oninion of the Supreme Court.
VI assail me because l used the fol.
10 language. 1.-THE common law of
N nd was made the rule of decision
Ia state. and rights acquired under
statute cannot now be impaired; ex.
~ rights might be condemned and
ssorn Now. what is the matter with
declaration? Do you deny that the
r,on law of England was made the
nf decision in this state? Perhaps
ara not aware that the legislature
.ed an act in 1850 which was contin-
IL force by the codes, and you can
Il by examining page 2l9 of the
Entes Of 1850, and if you put yourself
XII trouble you will see that the com.
|, law of England was expressly adopt
~ the legislature as rule of decision.
nav have been bad policy to have
! 20 but the legislature has the
Fer at any time to change the rule,
has not acted. l am not saying that
rnle should not be changed, but |
nlv refer to facts as they ere.
~ as to the other part of the objec-
ceble phrase, that rights acquired
6sr the statute cannot be impaired"
i that "existiug rights might be con.
hned and paid for" l can see no
mi for criticism. Are you an anar-
- communist? Do you pretend
.&bperty can be taken in violation
N constitution? II man has ac-
|red rights under a statute he cannot
|denriyed of them without violating
4 fundamental law. Have you ever
/ ri that there was provision in the
Lst;tntiou Of the United States as well
4 he constitution of our own state,
psecting rights which had become
Rted, and do you remember 2 provis-
of our state constitution which pro-
les that private property cannot De