The herald., 1895-07-23

irrigation to specirc persons within dis
trict, and to those only, but all Of this IS
authorized to be done without affording
the owner any opportunity to be heard
In opposition to the validity of the pro-
ceeaings. In these provisions no oppor-
tunity is contem plated whereby any
property owner within the district may
have hearing, either as 10 the sufficienoy
OF the petition which forms the basis oI
the district organization or as to any acs
which it may do. 1t IS thus PROVIDED
that no due process of law is required py
the act as condition precedent ior tne
condemnation and sale of private proper
ty. In this the act was found TO DC IN
direct violation Of the federal contsitutioh
and Of every recognized canon OF justice
and equity. Not only was 1t not pro
yided that any land owner WITHIN me
district might have a hearing, out the
board OF supervisors was expressly pro-
'nibiteu from making any inquiry, as to
the suffciency of the fundamental petit
tion before declaring the existence OF the
irrigation district. The petition might
not contain the required number OF
names of land owners within the district,
and thus was left open chance to fully
allow any wrongly disposed persons con /.
trolling district to force the sale Of
lands within that district, in direct viola
tion of the law and public policy. This
would clearly be case OF depriving the
InulVluual Cl uib pIOpcIty WituOut uue
process of law.
Apart from the two foregoing questions
involved in the controversy, the court
expressed himself adversely upon the
proposition of constructing an irrigation
district. as in this case. where no natural
water supply existed for purposes of irri-
cation and where, as was revealed upon
the trial. it was contemplated to take
private property for the purpose of estab-
fishing dams and reservoirs in which to
catch rain and food water. The case
was declared not to come within the
cases contemplated by the Wright act.
but to be rather in the nature of an ex-
pertinent. And, too, within the proposed
district there were certain lands belong
ing to the United States and to the state
OF California, besides those of complain
ant. for the admission of which to the
benefits of irrigation no petition was
ever signed, and yet, by reason of such
existence OF such lands bonds issued by
the district officers were raised to the
amount of $4,000.
Regarding the question of public policy
involved in the adjudication of the con-
troversy, the court SAID:
The fact that vast sums of money
have been invested in works constructed
under and in pursuance OF this legisla-
tion, and that bonds running into the
millions have been issued and sold there.
under, and that many individuals may
not otherwise be able to secure water for
the irrigation OF their respective tracts of
land, and that the validity of the legis-
lation has been several times sustained
BY the supreme court Of the state, while
demanding on the part of this court great
care and caution in the consideration of
the case and casting upon it a very grave
responsibility cannot justify it in declar-
ing valid legislation which, in its judg.
ment violates those prIn nciules of the CON-
stitution of the United States which pro-
tect the private property of every person
against forcible taking without due pro-
cess of law and for other than lawful
purpose. Such questions are not to be
determined by Considerations Of expedi-
ency or hardship. Unfortunate as it will
be if losses result to investors and desira-