Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-10-05

OF the swamp lands, and 1t Is only a
speculation as to when In the future
there would he n public to benefit. Now
in the irrigation cases. with the majority
OF the owners living upon the land itself
there must always be more or less oil a
public.
Now including one Of the most i'm.
poftant OF these drainage cases let us
see what was decided. The case Of
Hayer VS. Reclamation District No. los
Is a California case and was finally de.
cided by the Supreme Court OF the
United States. Hence 1t Is important in
this connection to see whatlhe facts were
how Il was decided, and how that de.
cision vii affect the irrigation cases.
The plaintiff Hayer was the owner Of
Spanish grant, large potion Of which
was included In a reclamation drainage
district known as No. 1903.
The evidence showed that not one
soul lived within the boundaries OF the
district when II was organized. There
was therefore no public to be benefited,
no question Of health could enter into
the considerations e the court, because
IN the district at The time there was no
public. The p'alntiil himself did not
want the land reclaimed He liked the
overflow. He did not want the water
kept of his land. 1, make the grass
grow just at the time he wanted the
grass 10 grow. But the supreme court
OF California 10 a decision concutred in
by Judge Ross himself, and the Supreme
Court OF the United States compelled
Hayer to pay an assessment Of over
800, 600 TO have the water that so come
TO sui, him kept oil his land and all be-
cause majority oil the land owners
forming reclamation district to suit
themselves had an idea that 1t would
benefit the public at large.
In closing this paper ! will give a
summary OF the decision OF the Supreme
Court OF the United States and how that
case Is analogous to the case before Us.
/. la the Hayer case the court dc.
cided that due process Of law" In tax
cases does not admit OF the delay atten-
dant upon proceedings in a court Of
just &c, and that they are not required
ior the enforcement OF taxes or assess.
menis, while In the Falbrook case Judge
Ross decided that these were necessary
?. The court also decided that the
California law under which the assess.
ment In this case was made and levied,
does not conflict with thu class OF the
rash amendment OF tue constitution, de.
claring that no state shall deprive any
person OF life. liberty or property with.
out the process Of law II this Is so
neither does the Wright law.
]. In the Haycr case the court de-
Glued that the legislature had the
authority to decide wnat was a public
use or purpose, and decided that the
reclamation district law was enact d Tor
such purpose IN spite oil the fact that
there was no public within the particular
district to be benefited.
4. The court decided that the mode
OF assessment aud enforcement OF the
same, in such cases, In question which
belongs to the legislature. Now In the
Wright law the question has been set.
tied by the legis atlre.
S. The court decided that absJlu,etquil.
~ IA imposing the tax ana the benefits
derived may not b. reached aud were
not necessary to make tle statute legal,
50 long US no direct and inyi iiou, dis.
elimination Is not mldt. the Wight
Law comes within this ruling as all the
properly OF the dis,rigt be assessed and
the wat,rs divided among toe various
owner, according as the ratio tf their
assessment bears TO the total assessment
oil the district.
9. The court decided that II was no
longer open to doub, that II Is within the