The herald., 1893-10-10

burdened with common law, and q
common law 1t is when compared with
the civil.
The common law recognizes riparian
Chat Is, bank rights. Patrick Hamil-
ton, author OF book on irrigation,
Gays:
Suppose q man owns land on both
sides OF stream at its mouth. Under
the application OF the law OF riparian
(bank) rights he would be entitled to
receive the entire volume OF water in the
stream, undiminished in quantity and
unimpaired in quality"
Such q law, of course, shuts out all ir-
rigation by those above the man who
lives at the mouth of the stream. Not
so with the civil law. Written and cod
itied by those old nations OF the great
arid belts of the world. it recognizes and
provides for irrigation rights. Under
the civil law grew up some of the grand
est civilizations OF the old world. Irri-
cation was the foundation of their
polity.
But the state constitution, which had
been ratified in November, 1849. said
that all laws then in force consistent
with itself should remain binding until
repealed by the legislature. Although
that body adopted the common law in
several instances. it adopted the civil
law. Thus the city of Los Angeles was
invested with the same power and con-
troll over the distribution of water for
the purposes OF irrigation as was pos
sessed by the old pueblo. Here com.
menced mixture of these two great
legal systems.
In 1872 the legislature passed an act
to promote irrigation. The same year
the statutes were codified on the civil
law plan, and in went section 1422 of the
code of civil procedure: "Tho rights OF
riparian [bankl proprietors are not af-
fected by this title. little VIII on
water rights.
Then came the eillogical supreme court
decision in 1884 sustaining riparian
rights. Then the Legislature repealed
section 1922, and left 14l0, which reads ::
THE right to the use OF running water
in a river or stream or down canon or
ravine may be acquired by appropria-
tion." Then came the Wright irriga-
tion districts with power of eminent do
main TO destroy riparian right. The
Wright law ia only a sop. California
has certainly been cursed with a lot of
asinine legislators and judges.
The pitiful decision OF the supreme
court for riparian rights was founded on
the now repealed section 1922. They
further alleged there must be riparian
OF bank rights on Kern river because it
had no pueblo!
In 1880 Lieutenant Governor John
Mansfield endeavored to get law
passed dividing the state into two dis
tricts, namely Northern and Southern
California. The bill provided that on
irrigation matters Northern California
should be goverened by the common
law and Southern California by the
civil law. This WAS q common sense
proposition, as the heavy rainfall renders
riparian rights just in that section,
while in Southern California, on ac-
count OF the lighter rainfall, they are
manifestly unjust. The measure met
with an over whelming defeat.
Northern California has proven by
her persistent opposition for over 40
years that she never will consent to the
enactment of fair irrigation law.
Southern California cannot exist with
out irrigation. This being the fact, the
only remedy for Southern California
is to get the state divided and thus
obtain the privilege to make her own
laws. Then, and not till then, can
this section get justice in matters of ir-
rigation.