The herald., 1895-07-26
WHAT THE EDITORS THINK OF JUDGE ROSSS DECISION

Judge Ross decision that the Wrigh
irrigation act is unconstitutional is little
short of astounding. The Wright act ha'
been passed upon by court after court; Il
has been before the supreme court or the
state of California time and again, ano
it has withstood attack at every point
No statute was supposed to be more
firmly bulwarked behind the principles
of law. Yet these decisions are over.
thrown by the decree of the federal court
that the law was counter to the consti.
tution.-San Francisco Examiner.
The most unpleasant result of Judge
Ross decision will be the effect it will
produce abroad. AS stated above. some
IS, OO0 900 have been sold TO Enslishmen.
The buyers will now find that they have
in vested their money in law suit. and
will rage accordingly. They put their
means into the bonds, relying on the un-
exampled fertility of the state and the
high repute OF Californians for honor. 1t
NAV be expected that they will now be
venomous and sarcastic at our expense.
and it is hard to see what reply we can
make to their sarcasms.-San Francisco
Bulletin.
Judge Ross of the circuit court of the
United States has decided on demurrer
that the Wright irrigation law of this
state is unconstitutional, because 1t takes
of public. We venture to say that Judge
Ross is wholly wrong in this respect:
that he has forgotten that it is wholly
within the province OF the legislature to
determine and decide wnat constitutes
public use and that the courts, whether
state or federal. are not entitled to an
pul stats statute unless it be in direct
conflict with the state or federal consti-
tution.-San Francisco Chronicle.
;.lt II do
clared unconstitutional by Judge Ross of
the United States circuit court and some
$40. 600, 900 invested in the bonds of the 40
irrigation districts of the state is affected
by the decision. the main proposition
in the decision of Judge Ross is that the
taxing of private property for purposes of
irrigation is not for so clearly a defined
public use as justites the exercise OF the
right. This is an affirmation of the sacred
ness of private property and its exemption
from burdens that are not imposed for
the benefit of the whole community. and
1t IS in this aspect declaration of the
highest importance. II not reversed by
the supreme court the decision will stand
as bulwark against future attempts to
transgress this principle, albeit it will
affect disastrously California interests IN
connection with irrigation districts.-Pas-
adena Star.
The decision rendered by Judge Ross in
the circuit court yesterday is one of the
most important ever delivered in this
state. it, effect will be bad in many
counties of the state where vast irriga-
ton pojects have been undetaken, and. in
some instances, partially completed under
the provisions of tho Wright act. 1t is
with no thought OF eXulting over oar less
fortunate neighbors that we call atten
tion of the fact that in Orange county
dua have
effect. On the contrary. the effect will be
to bring more people into this county for
the reason that here good crop every
season is certainty and the various irri
CATION systems are on solid basis and
cannot be affected by any litigation re-
gardins the Wright act. In another part
OF this paper will be found a statement
regarding the various irrigation systems
of Orange county.-Santa Ana Blade.
The point involved in the decision is
so simple that it can be readily srasped
by the lay mind. The constitution pro-
vides that private property cannot be
forcibly taken from Its owner except by
due process of law. and for a public pur-
pose. The question is, Can the estab-
lIshment of an irrigation system be
deemed a public purpose? Our state
courts have decided that il can; Judge
Ross decides that it cannct. The open
ing OF a road or canal for transportation
of passengers and merchandise IS clearly
an enterprise for public purpose; but
the introduction of water into district,
some of whose inhabitants need it while
others do not. stands upon a different
footing. 1t is plain that body OF land
holders could not seize land ior irrigation
purposes if the irrigation was only to
benefit n minority of their mum ber;
would their position be altered if the
~ roposed irrigation was desi gned TO ben