The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-25
SAYS IT WILL NOT HOLD.
Directly Contradictory to the
Rulings of the Supreme
Court.
DISASTROUS TO FARMERS.
Water Made q Commodity to Be
Dealt Out as an Article Of
Merchandise.

MODESTO, CAL, July 24.-"The opinion
of Ross is sweeping one and If 1t Is ac-
cepted as the law of the land would abso-
lutely and Internationally relegate the
furnishing of water for irrigation purposes
to individual and private corporate enter
prises," said Hon. G. C. Wright, the author
of the irrigation law knocked out by Judge
Ross decision, to CALL correspondent to-
day.
HE fatty holds that the use of water
for irrigation purposes is a private and not
public use," continued Mr.. Wright. "If
this is the correct doctrine no statute can
be enacted by which the people can in
public capacity own or distribute water for
irrigation purposes. In other words, we
must depend on private proprietors for
water supply for irrigation purposes. This
of course presupposes that the entire
water supply for irrigation purposes must
fall into the hands of private proprietors.
What worse calamity could befall Califor-
MIA than that her splendid water supply
should go into private hands? What ten
able reason can be given why the holders
of lands requiring irrigation should not
also own the right to water sufficient for
their irrigation?
"Priyate ownership of the water supply
means that it must be dealt out to the
farmer as an article of merchandise, al
ways, of course, at a profit to the vender
and at corresponding sacrifice to the farm
er. If the use of water for irrigation be
not a public use, then there are no means
of overcoming the objections which Judge
Ross makes to the Wright law.
II do not think Judge Ross is supported
In this view by any decision which he
cites, and none is within my knowledge.
Authority to the contrary is quite abun-
dant. In the case Barber VS.. Connolly,
1I3 United States 81. the Supreme Court of
the United States, speaking through JUS
tice Field, said:
But neither this amendment fourteenth
amendment to the United States constitution,
broad and comprehensive as 1t is, nor any
other amendment, was designed to interfere
with the power of the State, sometimes termed
police power, to prescribe regulations to pro-
mote health, peace, morals, education and
good order of the people, and to legislate SO as
to increase the industries of the State, develop
its resources and add to its wealth and pros
perity. From the very necessities of society
legislation of special character, having these
objects in view must often be held in special
districts, such for draining marshes and irri-
eating arid plains. Regulations for these pur-
poses may press with more or Less weig upon
one than another, but are designed not TO i'm
pose unequal or unnecessary restrictions upon
any, but to promote with as little inconven-
fence as possible the general good.
''I have quoted thus literally from the
decision of the Supreme Court to show the
doctrines held by that tribunal upon the
precise question decided by Judge Ross.
But the Supreme Court of the United
States has gone further. 1t has held that
the question whether the use is private or
public is not q Federal question. This
doctrine will be found enunciated in the
case of Davidson versus New Orleans (6
Otto, 90, and in other decisions of the
United States Supreme Court. That is to
say, it is for the State to determine whether
the use given under the statute is public or
private, and when determined by the State
that determination is conclusive.
Another feature of Ross opinion hap
pens to be remarkable at this juncture. He
says the district law is unconstitutional
because there is ne means provided where
by the property-owner can test the suffi-
cheney of a petition for organization of ir-
rigation districts. I will not lengthen this
interview by quoting the statute regulat-
ing the matter, but simply remark that if
the district law is unconstitutional by rea-
son Of this feature, then the municipal cor
porations act of the State is void for the
same reason. Precisely the same hearing
is provided for in that act as is provided
by the district law.
eff Judge Ross shall be sustained, then
there is no city or town in California
organized under the general law of the
State which is not void organization. In
all cases where cities or towns SO organized
have outstanding bonded Indebtedness
bonds would be void under this decision.
Compare section 2 of the district law with
section of the municipal corporations
act and you will see the feature which,
Ross holds, invalidates the district law
must necessarily invalidate the municipal
corporations act.
"This but shows how widespread must be
the disaster attending his decision, if it
shall stand. Every point presented in his
decision has been urged by able counsel
before our State Supreme Court again ana
again, aud has been as repeatedly over