The herald., 1895-05-19
TO THE EDITOR
1.-THE Herald under this heading prints cont
muntcations. but does not assume RESPONSE
bility for the sentiments expressed.
Is the Wright Act ConstitutionaIp

Ii the Wright Act CONSTITUTIONAL
First question. Has a state the right to
authorize the assessment of taxes, to pay
for local Improvements
Answer-This is one OF the rights
inherent in the states and not delegated
to the United States government. Judge
Field. in his elaborate opinion in the case
OF Hagar VS.. reclamation district No.
los, says that the state has the
power to require local improve
ments for the health and pros
perity of any community, such as canals
for drainage and levees to prevent inun.
dations, as well as for opening streets in
cities and roads in the country, and that
1T is question of legislative discretion as
to engaging in such enterprises.
The reclamation act was not simply a
sanitary act, but was for the developing
of agricultural and horticultural interests,
and only differs from the Wright irriga-
tion act in the fact that in the one there
was the legal machinery OF corporation
clothed with the taxing power to remove
water from lands. and in the other SIM
liar power granted to put water on lands.
careful analysis of the case OF David
son VS.. New Orleans, 96 U. s.. GIG, shows
that the court, in a learned opinion by
Justice Miller, sustains the right Of the
city of New Orleans to levy and collect
tax on property within the drainage dis
trict for the purpose of paying the ex-
penses of the same.
1t was argued in this case that some of
the lands within the district were not
equally benefited by the drainage with
others; that the cost of drainage would
have been much less If the work had been
let to other contractors. who offered to
do the work at much lower rates, and
that the assessment for the work was
,~rIA has, 4ho ~1- Napf.N r,nd
These objections were brushed aside as
belonging to the state courts and not en-
titled to hearing before the United
States supreme court.
The fourteenth amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States was pri-
marily intended to protect the rights OF
negroes, but it opened up to the disap-
pointed litigants all over the United
States a chance to get before the United
States courts on the mere pretext of their
property having been taken from them
without "due process of law"
The United States courts have spent
much of their time in defining what is
due '.due process of law" and a fair concen-
sus of many opinions shows that on ques-
tions of taxation or assessments the reg
ular and ordinary provision enacted by
the legislature OF a state is ''due process
of law" The courts of the United States
and nearly all the states have decided
tudb uclblcI IuIlCldl pCIoOhoi
notice are necessary as legal notice. The
Wright act requires all property to be
assessed by its own assessor between
certain dates, and then the books go into
the hands of its board Of equalization and
public notice is given to taxpayers to ap-
pear and contest their assessments, then
published notice is given by the collector,
stating when and where he would visit
taxpayers to receive their taxes. and when
taxes would be delinquent. After publi-
cation for not less than twenty-one days
of those delinquent giving accurate
description OF the property and amount
of taxes, with forfeit. the property is sold
to the highest bidder, and if no purchaser
appears then the district buys the prop
erty subject to redemption within one
year, with usual penalties.
We ask, in all candor, If the owner of a
city lot, or country ranch, is hedged in
with more safeguards for the protection
of his property than is given to those un-
der the Wright act? If assessment and "a
board of equalization, and noIice of day
of delinquency, and notice OF sale of de-
linquent property are enough to give
every property holder in Los Angeles his
"due process OF law" has not any holder
OF lands, in a Wright irrigation district,
had Just such notice? If so, then this
whole theory of want of "due process of
law" falls to the ground.
The rich owners of land in irrigation
districts say they cannot pay their taxes
on hundreds and thousands Of acres of
unimproved land. They do not say their
lands have not been enhanced equal to tn
cost of water for the same. They do not
want to improve their lands, The desesr
is just as attractive t. them as .e
flower garden-as they hold these lanua
for the benefit OF their posterity and they
do not wish to pay taxes for their devel-
opment years before their posterty comes
into possession of them. In other words,
few fortunate owners of lands, who
bought at government prices twenty
five years ago, viz; $l.25 per acre, prefer
holding these lands for their postcrity,
even il they are to remain the hhunts of
coyotes and wolves, than to join in with
small holders to develop their holdings.
question.
Does it cost too much to pay these taxes