The herald., 1895-07-23
Millions ARE involved
Decision of California's
Leading Controversy
The WRIGHT AC1 KNOCKED OUT
Was q Violation of National
and Fundamental Laws
SUBVERSIVE OF EQUITY
And Contemplated the Confiscation of
Private Property
twas FIlmsy Fabric Of Legislative Ignor.
ance and Stupidity
taining the Rights Of the Individual
InviolsbIc by Due Forms
Of Law
And Contemplated the Confiscation of
Private Property
twas FIimsy Fabric of Legislative Ignor.
ance and Stupidity

By a decision rendered yesterday in
the United States circuit court Judge
Ross has knocked out the Wright irriea-
tion act on the ground of unconsttution-
ality.
Nineteen millions of dollars are affected
by the opinion of the judge, and unless
the matter is reversed by the United
States supreme court the credit of the
state will tremble in the balance with
foreign investors. Its immediate effect
will be felt by a large nun ber of citizens
all over the state, principally in the San
Joaquin valley. Vast sums OF money
have been invested in Improvements
that are now o. little value save to the
land owner on whose property they
chance to have been made. There is but
slight chance for the bondholders to
retrieve their losses should the decision
be upheld by the higher tribunal.
The case under which the constitution
ality of the Wright act was tested was a
small one, involving the assessment IN
only forty acres of land in the Fallbrook
district, and owned by Mrs. Maria King
Bradley. 1t was a suit in equity, by
WulCu ~ was oOuSub W cuJOlu tuo cAoCu-
tion of deed tor Mrs. Bradley's land
under a sale ordered by the collector of
the Fa)lbrook irrigation district. to sat-
isfy delinquent assessment held against
the property. This assessment was lev
led under the Wright irrigation act, which
provided for the organization and exist
ence OF irrigation districts. and was to
obtain decree adjudgihG the proceeding
under that legislation. in so far as 1t re-
erty, void and of no effect.
AS stated in the bill. the complainant
alleged that the act, as approved by the
legislature of 1887 was not in accordance
with the provisions of the constitution Uf
the state, and, further. that it confiicted
with the federal constitution, inasmuch
as it attempts to deprive a private indi-
vidual of property without due process OF
law, and that it contemplated taking pri-
vate property for private use.
In rendering his opinion yesterday
morning, Judge Ross said, in substances:
Opinion Of the Court
The decision involves the determination
OF several constitutional provisions Ielat-
ing to property rights and the duties of
legislatures in framing laws pertaining
thereto.
court of California had already determined
the validity OF the act of the Legislature
upon which defendants grounded their
demurrer, and in answer to the argument
that the federal court was found to regard
such adjudication, Judge Ross recalled
the dictum already established upon the
point to the effect that the solution of
the question 'must be sought not in the
decisions OF any state tribunal but in
general principles common to all courts" "
Proceeding to the consideration of the
questions involved, the court first took up
al nf rioti inn,
OF private property for public use. as pro-
vlded in certain cases, comparing the
present casej with adjudicated cases upon
the subject. The broad proposition as es.
taloished by precedent of successive trib-
unals, was not questioned, but is was
insisted that the case at bar did not come
within that classification. The mere fact
that the language OF the act stated that
under its provisions property, under de-
linquent sales, and for other contemplated
purposes, would be taken for public"
purposes in compliance with the four
tenth amendment of the federal consti-
tuition, VISA declared to be insufficient to
establish bsyond question the real purpose
and import Of legislation. put that it was
competent and even obligatory upon
or no the proposed legislation was in fact
subservative to a real public use.
The Wright law contemplated the Or
ganizaion of certain irrigation districts
and provided that upon "a certain petition
their existence should be declared to OBJ
tain. 1t also provided among other
things, that the property of individuals
within the area OF irrigation, should be
B taxed for the maintenance of the plant.
ana for the payment OF the bonds and
interest for money required in its estab-
lishment.
The purpose for which money could be
raised was the establishment of plants,
canals and expense Of organization only
such services as were subservient to the
proposed operations within limited area.
When completed the plant was to belong
exclusively to the irrigation district and
its officers were to determine whether ap-
plicants for the use of all services estab.
lished were entitled to such privileges.
In shorE. the act contemplated the estab-
lishment of plant not for the use of the
general public. but for only such as re-
sided and owned lands within the dis
trict. This the court decided. was not
such public use" as would justify the
appropriation OF private property. In
support Of this position the court made
an exhaustive review OF the cases already
passed upon in which the eminent do
main had been worked for the purpose of
condemning private property. l was not
enough that the public would receive. in
cidentally benefits such as usually spring
from the improvement OF lands in the
establishment of prosperous private enter
nAASCot OuU tuo PuDilC uoo COHtOthplotC0
by law meant possession, occupation and
enjoyment. and it must be considered to
include the entire public and not the few
within narrow district.
Passing onto the next point raised in
the case, the court asserted that j. the act
in question could be maintained at all it
must be under the power OF assessment
for local Improvements or the power OF
the legislature to establish regulations by
which adjoining lands held by various
owners in severalty and in the improve
ment OF which all have common in
terest but which, by reason of the pecu-
liar natural condition of the whole tract,
cannot be improved or enjoyed by any
without the concurrence of all. may be
reclaimed and made useful to all at their
joint expense. But in this case, no more
than IN any other, could property be
taken from the individual without "due
process OF law" In the present CO. th
court ruled that mot only does the legis-
iation in question provide for the assessing
and selling. and thus the taking, of pri-
vate property in order to supply water for