The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-30
JUDGE FULLER's VIEW.
An Interesting Open Letter by
the President of an Irri-
cation District.
ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Reasons for Anticipating the Ruling
of the Highest Tribunal of
the Land.

SAN DIEGO, CAL, Aug. 29.-Judge
George Fuller, president of the Linda
Vista irrigation district, has sent an open
letter to residents and property-owners of
the district in answer to inquiries as to the
probable outcome of litigation concerning
the Wright act and the duty of the dis
trict in the meantime.
"Since the announcement of the de-
cision of the United States Circuit Court
at Los Angeles in the Falbrook case, ad-
verse to the constitutionality of the
Wright act" says Judge Fuller, 81 have
been many times asked by residents and
propertv-owners in Linda Vista district
what I thought would be the fate of the
act when it should come before the United
States Supreme Court. Up to this time l
had been content to assume that the act
was valid on the strength Of decisions of
the Supreme Court of this State, all of
which have been favorable to the constitu-
tionality of the act and its validity from
all points of view. But for this recent ad-
verse ruling should probably have been
content to await the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in the Modesto case,
pending on appeal before it, without at
tempting to form an opinion in adyancesas
to its probable action.
The result of close examination is to
make it appear to me that there is much
ground for apprehension that the Supreme
Court OF the United States will decide that
the taxing power of the State cannot be
used by local assessments in aid of pro-
viding water for irrigation. The act at
tempts to extend the right to assess for
local improvements to kind of improve
ment for which assessments were never
before made, and the right to so assess is
attempted to be grounded on the theory
that, although irrigation may primarily
and directly benefit the owner or occupier
of land irrigated and only incidentally and
indirectly benefit the community, yet that
benefits to the community generally from
irrigation of large tracts of land, which
without it would be arid and unproduc-
tive, are so extensive and far reaching
that improvement may be considered
public one, or public use to such an extent,
at least as rightfully to call for the exer-
else of taxing power in aid of it.
Indeed the view adopted by our State
Supreme Court is that the act is FOR the
benefit of the public, and that the advan-
tage to owners and occupiers of land using
water provided is only incidental. This is
a matter of opinion which may be affected
by environment; and possibly if the
Judges of the Supreme Court of the United
States were ali residents of California, and
the arid region were something more to
them than a thing to read about or hur-
riedly passed through on cars, and the
need of that region for irrigation, difficulty
OF providing it and the change in product
iveness and habita bleness wrought when
water is brought on the land were all
known to them as known to the Judges of
our own State tribunal, the Federal Su-
preme Court would coincide with the views