Arizona weekly citizen., 1895-08-03
THE WRIGHT ACT.

iAtsi cStou in tDe OeciSOO IcHGSftN .E
 the case of Bradley ct al vs. Fallbrook
 irrigation district in the United States
 circuit court at Los Angeles, wherein
 the "WrigAt Irrigation District Law" of
 California was declared unconstitution-
 al.
 Briefly stated, the act provided for
 the formation of irrigation districts,
 somewhat on the plan of the common
 school districts, their purpose being to secure to water supply, the provide the
 canals and other works necessary to
 complete irrigation system. and to own
 and operate tte same. Lands lying
 within the boundaries of the proposed
 district found not to be capable Of irri-
 gation from the common system might
 upon petition be excluded from the dIs-
 trict when formed. Lands adjoining
 the proposed district found capable Of
 irrigation from the general system might
 in the same manner be included. The
 cost of all the operations of the district
 was to be borne by all the included
 lands. Bonds issued in payment of such
 expenses wera lien upon all property
 in the district as is he ease with issues
 of school bonds or other public debts.
 This plan was devlsed for the purpose
 of enabling the people Of any particular
 locality where irrigation is a necessity
 to provide the means for their own ad-
 vancement. The usual objectors were of that claes of people who wish to hold
 their lands-often without improve ments, always at the least possible ex- pense for taxation-while the improve ments made by their neighbors about them largely enhances the value of their own lands. Some such obstacles to pro gress are found in every locality; they oppose every public improvement be- cause 1t increases taxation; they resist
 every private or corporate effort to ac-
 complish any work of notable advantage to the public, fearing that some others than themselves may derive profit in
 the operation The case recently decid- ed seems to have been of this nature
 The court decided, in effect, that the law was unconstitutional because not general in its application, and therefore not for public usa, inasmuch Gs not every person residing within the dietrict could receive a direct benefit from its operation, but only such as were land holders; and that it thus became Q talk ing of private property for prsvate uses. We make no claim to a knowledge of constitutional law. but are of the opinion that if no law is constitutional unless it be direct benefit to every person af- fected by 1t, then every statute book may as well be given to the fiameg, be- cause no such law exists. Probably no law has ever been enacted that WAS not distasteful or actually harmful to con- siderable number of those affected by it. In very many cases the number of per sons opposed to a law and directly ia. jured by 1t amounts to large minority Certainly anything like unanimous con- sent could very rarely be obtained. We call ours ''Government of the People, | for the People, and by the People" yet i many people have no voice in the affairs 1 of their government, and many others i are compelled, notwithstanding their l protests, to yield 10 the will of the ma iority. No national government has ever had. or can ever have, the unanimous i support or the governed, nCr can there ] be law which will not Gnfavorabiy af- l feet some interests. The corner stone 1 of our system of government IS, "tne | majority shall rule" Not every peEson | can be suited. therefore the minority | must assent to the acts of the majority. | Any other course produces anarchy.
 Not to dwell longer upon the theory otlegisletion, we are daily familiar with examples of people who are compelled part with their property for the good Of others. Because the number of those I benefited IS proportionately large it is called public use, and the contention of the minority that they want no share of the benefits does not relieve them from bearing their part of the cost.
 Many have attempted to evade the pay ment of scnoel taxes on the ground that they had no children, or that their chil- dren were not of school age, or that they preferred to have theIr children attend private, sectarian or foreign schools. In this they have failed; the principle ie everywhere maintained by the courts that education is public benefit, part of the people being directly benefited, the remainder indirectly. Exactly the same view should be taken on an irriea- tion district in 8 region where a major lty of the qualified voters decide shat irrigation Is necessary or advisable. As well might man refuse to pay road tax for the reason that he owns no vehi- cle, nor animal for use on the roads: or to oppose taxation for erecting 6 claiming that he never had lawsuit: or to resist being taxed 10 |; support criminal courts and peace oiii- !. ciais, on the ground that be had never been arrested, as to refuse to pay taxes III nu hAiBoOiOA uiSIIiCb beCauS6 there might be some residents of the district i who owned no land within its limits. ant , who therefore would receive no direct benefit from the taxation.
 In thickley settled communities bikes or improved roads are constructed under of law. Sometimes the cost is paid directly from the funds raised by 2 general taxation, sometimes by assess ments upon Rll who are in position to be benefited by the improvement. In either case many persons are taxed who 1 protest that they want DO pikes, or tha ( the old roads are good enough, or that \ they prefer to travel some other than I the road selected for improvement, etc. The courts have systematically denied the sufficiency of such pleas, holding that the use WAS public one.