Los Angeles herald., 1892-03-20
and common council" (Cal. Stat. '54,

anu common council" (Cal. Stat. '54,
p. 63.)
1t is difficult to conceive of language
more clearly framed than the above to
declare that the Mexican pueblo of Los
Angeles did have vested rights in the
waters OF the Los Angeles river, and
that the American city of Los Angeles
succeeded to all those ancient and vested
rights.
And yet in the face of this unrepealed
law the supreme court in 1884 was
pleased to say:
The inhabitants of the former pueblo
| [of Los Angeles] who were using water
when the territory was transferred to
the United States, had not acquired
vested right to any particular quantity
of water. COG Cal. p. 329.)
Prior to the adoption of the codes in
| 1872 numerous laws had been enacted,
authorizing the construction of irrigat-
| ing canals and the creation of irrigating
| districts and defining the duties of their
officers.
The act of April 1, 1872, was "to pro-
mote irrigation" This law recognized
water rights, and the right to acquire
such by condemnation, and provided for
the formation OF districts.
But that year the codes went into
effect, and section 1922 of the civil code,
the legal "straw" at which the supreme
court in Lux vs.. Haggin 30 eagerly
grasped, became law, the first direct
legal recognition, probably, of riparian
rights in California, and that not until
irrigation rights had been recognized,
protected, enforced and promoted in the
state for twenty-five years. 1t reads:
"1422. The rights of riparian propri-
etors are not affected by the provisions
of this title"
1t is no longer law, having been ere
pealed, but not affecting rights already
vested" on March Is, 1887. Whatever
vested rights there were then, were 30
vested only by the absurd decisions of
the courts in face of all prior state legis-
latian ito promote irrigation" and
against the very spirit of the common
law itself. The reason for such law in
the codes was doubtless because the
personnel of the code commission who
drew up the codes, were entirely North
learned in the law, knew little or cared
southern and arid section of their state.
Title s, of division 2, of the civil code,
begins with section 141O, and ends with
the repealed section 1922.
Section 1410 declares that "the right
to the use of running water flowing in a
river or stream or down a cafIon or
ravine may be acquired by appropria-
tion."
Apparently the only obstacle now is
the decision of the supreme court in
that cause celebre, Lux vs. Haggin, SO
Cal. 255.
This ponderous decision covers fully
200 pages, and for bulk much resembles
the write-up given by the San Francisco
Chronicle-no one is said to have read
it but the writer and proof-reader. In
this case, hewever, l can certify that a
third person has read it entire, much
for the same reason some students
of theology worry through the Book
of Mormon, namely, in order to be
able to say they have read it. Certainly
no other decision ever made by the su-
preme court of the state of California
ever created such storm of popular
disapproval or caused the state so much
expense or it's citizens so much annoy
ance and anxiety.
The lawsuit was between the two
prominent firms of Miller & Lux and
Haggin & Carr, including several other
parties on both sides. Miller & Lux
were extensively engaged in the cattle
business, and had large pastures in
Tulare valley, in Kern county, where
their livestock watered at the Kern
river. Haggin and his associates were
owners of large tracts of land in the same
part of the valley which they wished to
irrigate, and they organized the Kern
River Land and Canal company for that
purpose, and proceeded to appropriate
a certain quantity of water in
the Kern river under the state
law. Lux and his associates brought
suit to restrain this diversion
on the ground that they were entitled
to all the flow in the Kern river as ri
parian owners. Here for the first time
in the history of the state was the issue
joined between irrigation and riparian
rights, between English" and Gamer
ican" common law. The riparian Judge
of Kern county decided in favor OF irri-
cation. The riparian claimants then
appealed to the supreme court. Said
Judge Ross in his dissenting opinion
thereon:
"AlthOugh numerous cOntestswith re-
spect to water have arisen and been ad-
Indicated by the supreme court of this
state, as we'll as by the supreme court
of the United States, neither court has
heretofore been called upon to decide
the precise question now at issue.'
The court, by bare majority of one,
held that the common law, as to ripa-
rian rights, is in force in California!
The announcement of this queer de-
cision in the fall of 1884 created an i'm
mense excitement all over the state.
Such an outburst of popular indignation
never before greeted ruling Of a court.
People everywhere saw that such an un-
just decision, pushed to it's logical con-
clusion. meant the ruin of their homes,
and in some places, in the heat of the
moment, armed resistance was dis
cussed.
ITO BE CONTINUED.
Liked His Books.
Physicians and sufferers from the grip
may find a useful hint in the announce