The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-12-12
WATER DISTRICTS.
The Irrigation Act Declared Con.
StitutiOnal.
A Decision Of Supreme Importance to
Agriculturists How Big Capitalists
Fought the Law.

The Supreme Court rendered decision
yesterday of the highest Importance TO the
agricultural interests of the State. 1t de-
cided that the Irrigation Act passed by the
Legislature in 1887 is constitutional.
Inc act provides for ''the organization
and government of irrigation districts and
for the acquisition Of water and other prop.
erty, and for the distribution of water there.
| by Tor Irrigation purposes"
1t was designed to give the residents OF
any portion Of the Stale the right to acquire
water rights without regard for the desires
or opposition of the big landed proprietors
In the same district; and it Is thought that
Its operation will result in breaking up these
immense farms and pastures into small or
chards and vineyards.
Immediately after the passage of the act
district called the MADEIRA Irrigation Dis
trlct was created iu Fresno County. A
board OF Directors was appointed, which de-
clued that 1t would be necessary to raise
$500 Oo for constructing the necessary
canals and purchasing water rights.
CARRIED BY A LARGE MAJORITY.
A special election was held, at which the
question of issuing bonds for the required
amount was submitted to the people. The
result showed how high the law stood in
the favor OF the people, for of the go votes
cast 243 were in favor of issuing the irriga-
ton bonds, and but seven were against the
proposition.
The bonds were at once ordered ssu ed,
ana then commenced one of the longest and
most exciting legal battles that has been
fought In the courts OF California. Not
only the proprietors of the great ranches in
Fresno, but In Colusa and what is now
Glenn County and in other sections of the
State, armed themselves with the best legal
talent that could be procured and Joined in
the fray
>, Suit was brought in the Superior Court of
FRESNO to test the cUnstitutionality of the
act and with it the validity of the election
AT which so large majority of the people
nad voted Tor the issue of the bonds.
Inc case was decided in favor of the peO-
PIE, ana an appeal was taken to the Su-
prene Court by Henry Miller and by Henry
Miller, Miranda Wilmarth Lux and jesse
T"tter rs executors and executrix OF Charles
Lux's estate, and Henry Miller. surviving
partner of the firm of Miller & Lux, james
u. Haggln. George ID. Bliss. the California
Pastoral and Agricg ltural Company and the
sierra vista Vineyard Company
OPPOSED THE LAW.
These are all large landowners in the dis
lrlct, ana they were opposed to the law be-
cause the burden of taxation created would
lall upon them. Small property-owDers
wanted their lands irrigated and were will
lug 10 be assessed; but not so the capital
ISIS, VINO mad large tracts which they were
using for grazing or holding for speculative
purposes.
The transcripts handed up to the court
were very bulky volumes, and it is known
that the Supreme Court deliberated long
aud earnestly over them before giving the
long-walted-fOr decision. which, as soon as
rendered, was mailed 10 the clerk of the
Supreme Court at Sacramento, where the
appeal was filed.
In tins decision the act is declared conSti-
tutona in all its provisions, but it is held
that the lower court erred In admitting Ger
tain records and petitions in evidence while
the case was being tried.