The herald., 1895-07-28
c. c. WRIGHT INTERVIEWED
Talks of Judge Ross Late
Decision in the Case
WILL FIGHT TO THE BITTER END
The Matter to Come Before the
Supreme Court
TO BE HEARD NEXT FALL
Judge variel Is Of the Opinion That II
Will Hold
TO BE HEARD NEXT FALL
And Mr.. Wright Seems Sure Of Coming
Victory
Views Expressed by Attorneys and Others
Interested The Prevailing Idea Is
Rather Against the Opinion as
Has Been Given by
Ross

C. C.Wright. the father and promoter OF
the famous Wright irrigation act. has
returned to Modesto. During his sojourn
in this citv Mr.. Wright received the Ross
decision in the Bradley test case, and ex-
pressed himself III no ambiguous terms
regarding it.
To Herald representative he said,
among other things: ''In the face of the
recent decision I can hardly presage what
may become of the future act. OF course
this matter will be fought to the bitter
end. for the right and for the credit of the
Golden State. The Modesto case is soon
to come before the supreme court of the
United States, and We expect q more ia
vorable ruling than in the present in.
stance.
The decision certainly surprised me
greatly Fifteen judges of the supreme
court of the state have passed upon the
act and decided its constitutionallty. The
present ruling is a great blow to me, but
we will triumph in the end if it takes all
aummer.
The act Of itself believe to be a Just
and good one, and it is only through the
perversion of its provisions that it has
fallen into the bad repute it now suffers
from in Southern California.
1.-The case will undoubtedly be appealed
and everything shall be done to secure a
reversal of the late decision"
Judge X. II. +. Variel who represents
the opposite side of the case, said in
the same connection:
Il think that the decision will stand.
The question has been raised as to
whether Judge Ross has sufficient juris-
dIcton. | think that view OF the case an
erroneous one, and il my opinion will
add any weight l would te glad to place
it in the scale with Judge Ross decision.
1t would be only from the study of the
question from my standpoint that can
give you my views. 1t certainly amounts
TO a confiscation of property, and aside
from that il is impractical. 1t calls for
a greater amount of legal learning on the
rart of the administrator of the district,
and also for a greater amount OF integrity
and prudence than it is possible to OBJ
tain in the ordinary public. 1t is hard
to manage and is atrociously expensive.
The situation is certainly an unfor-
tunate one for the bondhoiders, but |
have an idea that where they have ac-
quired and hold property under the act
their right would prove an equitable
mortgage upon the property
Attorney Earl Rogers is also interested
in tho case from the side of the promul-
gator of the act. He spoke of the pros
poets of the stockholders, and seemed to
be of the opinion that all was not lost.
"The matter comes before the United
States supreme court in the fall and then
we shall ree," he said when questioned
by Herald reporter. 1.-The situation is
bad, but think, perhaps, there may be
an opening somtwhere that will afford a
solution of the difficulty"
Several other attorneys and property
holders interested were seen, but all