The herald., 1895-08-04
WHAT THE EDITORS Think OF JUDGE ROSS DECISION

more than once. and no Judge stands re-
corded as in accord with Ross. AS we
now understand the matter. Ross practice
ally reverses every one of the state judges
whom he does not rank nor excel in abili-
Y or experience. including Chief Justice
beatty, jackson Temple and De Haven
Modesto News.
While Judge Ross decision appears to
maintain only the point tnat lands OF
a protesting owner cannot be- included
in an irrigation distrist. still any sub
sequent act eliminating that feature
would result. not only in tending per-
haps to make the law imperative, but ir.
gering under the blow here administersd
to their securities, would BE- practically
debarred from placing their bonds in the
money markets of the world. The spirit
of public. irrigation enterprises has been
dealt blow from which it will be hard
TENS Of the state will tend toward private
ownership. Judge Ross has strained Al
gnat and swallowed a camel.-Anaheim
Gazette,
The decision against the Wright irrjra-
tion act by Juuge Ross of the United
States circuit court is the sensation of
the hour and so far as we can Learn the
prevailing opinion of we'll informed men
is that the United States supreme court
will sustain Judge Ross. In this matter
there are two ideas in conflict. On the
one side is the claim that the Interests of
the individual must give way to the in
terests of the community. The demand
for irrigation facilities in California has
been paramount to all other interests,
and it was not unnatural for the supreme
court of the state to hold that personal
interest must give way when the whole
interest of the development Of the state
was involved. and thus the state court
held the Wright act to be constitutional.
-Redlands Facts.
The decision OF Judge Ross declaring
the Wright irrigation law unconstitu-
tional will prove serious blow to the in
terests OF the state, delaying as it will the
develo rment of our lands by placing
within the hands of private corporations
the furnishing Of water to our agricultur-
lists. which, as the past gives ample evil
dence, will De productive OF endless liti-
farmers interests will suffer. The decis-
ion is very surprising since the law has
been SO frequently sustained by other
courts that the people had come to regard
it as permanent feature. MADEIRA Trib-
une.
The upsetting OF the Wright irrigation
law IS bad for the state. But if Judge
Ross is right and the acts invades fun
da-cnal principle of the federal constitu-
right to their possessions exceps they ale
taken by due process of law, then the re-
gret must pe that the decision did not
come earlier, that some OF the damage
that will result now might have been
avoided. But if the position of Judge
Ross is sound 1t will not be possible to
patch up the Law SO AS to escape the con-
stitutional objection, but an entirely new
and different system will have 10 be de-
vised.-Sacramento Record Union.
Judge Ross decision. declaring the
Wright irrigation law unconstitutional.
affects bonds to the amount of $40, 600. 600.
The majority of these bonds. however,
though large amount is held in SwitzeI..
land. The money expended by some OF
the districts, like the Sunset for instance,
will prove dead loss to those holding
the Indebtedness. Those holding bonds
of any of the districts will be put to their
OF course the case is not yet ended. II
will be taken to the court OF appeals, and
from there to the United States supreme
court Hanfcrd Democrat.
The decision of Judge Ross on the con-
stitutionality of the Wright law was one
of those unfortunate cases where the
cold law was on one side and equity. JUS
tioe and the interests OF d large portion
of the state of California were on the
other side. In such case Judge Ross
should have taken the cold law in his
teeth and decided the case on the side of
equity and justice. as well as the inter-
ests of the state. 1t is sad blow to the
irrigation districts, from which they will
not recover for years.-Oakland Times.
The decision Of Judge Ross in the
Wright irrigation case may be good law.
but that such condition as it will inev
tably bring forth is possible is disgrace
to republican form of government. The
men who invested in irrigation bonds
have right to say that they have been
robbed, and in truth there is very little
difference between declaring the millions
of bonds sold invalid and the methods
lately pursued by Chris Evans. Visalia
Times.