Los Angeles daily herald., 1886-06-26
WANTED. 4 Nnw supnnMn COURT.

1t is not interesting to the general pub
Tic 10 analyze the process OF reasoning by
which court reaches a conclusion in a
particular case, even when the decision
affects the material interests OF the peo-
ple at large. The decision OF the SUI
preme Court in the water case, although
between two private parties, Is rested ON
grounds which disposes of every water
right in the State. The great irrigating
section of the State, to which Alameda
county owes, in good measure, its pros
peritv. and upon which ii depends largely
| Tor future advancement, is most vitality
affected. Indeed the Supreme Court has
| bv this decision "snuited out, " as 1t were,
every right to use water for irrigation,
| heretofore supposed to be as stable and
secure as any class OF property rights
known to the law The people OF the
State care not how the Judges arrive at
| their conclusions. 1t is enough to know
the rules OF property laid down and to
appreciate the fact that irrigation is no
| longer to remain one OF the industries OF
| the State. What we must look Tor IS
the remedy II is very well to say that
the court is the tribunal whose duty it is
| to declare what the law is. But it must
be remembered that when courts take to
making new laws the people may make
new courts. This Supreme Court has
| given us some new law which mines and
saps the foundation Of our agricultural
prosperity. We have no further use for
such a court. We can not breathe the
same air with it. The San Francisco Ex-
aminer'' puts the situation thus strongly
In the constitution OF Massachusetts
OF 1880 the free people OF that common
wealth declared in their Bill of Rights;
In order to prevent those who are
vested with authority from becoming OPP
pressors, the people have right to such
| periods, and in such manner as they shall
| establish by their frame OF Government
to cause their public officers 10 return to
private life, and to fill up vacant places
by certain and regular elections and APP
| pointments.
This principle pervades the fundamen-
| tai laws of all OF the States. II is simply
that all public officers are and must ever
be subjected to the win of the people.
And now to the application.
The Supreme Court Of California has
arrayed itself in open opposition to the
people Of the State In matter which vi
tally affects the present prosperity and
| future material welfare Of the common
| wealth. Or il would be more accurate
and Just to say that four OF the seven
Judges have done SO, Theoretically courts
| decide cases between citizens, and be-
| tween citizens and the State. Practically
| they declare, and thereby determine the
customary common law which controls
other cases and affects varied and extern
| sive interests not involved in the imine-
diate controversies before them. A water
case was before this court. The majority
OF the judges took tho occasion to declare
and thereby to create, in effect, a system
OF water rights which ii enforced will ruin
the agricultural interests of California
which will destroy thousands Of happy
homes; which will desolatc vast area
of highly cultivated lapd-will relegate it
to the original desert from which it has
been redeemed; which will check and
prevent development, and which will set
California upon backward march.
We need not now enter into the details
OF this egregious blunder They have
been fully discussed in these columns
our readers and the people at large are
familiar with them. Suffice now to con-
template the evil and to consider the
remedy.
And the remedy is simple. The peo-
pie demand that the Judges who have
threatened their welfare shall retire.
They must go-sto cause their (these1
public officers TO retire to private life.
This Is the matter in nutshell, and here
we leave it,"
These arc brave words and true, and
in eecting the Legislature we must bear
it continually in mind that its members
will be called upon to legislate the ripari-
an court out OF existence. e.-ISan Leandro
Reporter, June IL.