The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-30
RESIDENTS MUST NOT EXPECT MUCH RELIEF,

of the former. But none of these prom
ises being true (save that Judge Field, one
out OF nine members of the court, is an old
Californian and familiar with the whole
sublect) these peculiar conditions are not
likely to exert such influence upon their
decision.
1.-THE precedents most relied on in sup
port OF the act are the reclamation dis
trlct cases, of which there have been sew
eral in the Supreme Court of the United
States, coming there from different States,
decisions In all of them having been favor
able to the right to tax for drainage pur-
poses or for the prevention of overhows by
levees. Consideration of public health has
been one element in upholding drainage
acts as measures for public benefit and this
would be sufficient in itself to uphold
them. But this would hardly be consid-
cred a sufficient reason to sustain the irri-
CATION act. The arid region is very healthy
without water, though it may be uncom-
Portable. [ am not speaking of deserts, to
which the Wright act could not be made
practicable, but drainage acts that have
been upheld, independent OF the considera-
tion of public health, as an exercise of
use of adjoining property held in severaty
by different owners, but which cannot be
improved or enjoyed without the concur
renee OF all.
"ln these drainage acts owners of several
tracts are treated for purposes of the acts
as owners of common property. Can any
principle be extracted from the ground for
upholding drainage acts which will sup
port the irrigation act? Can several own
ers in one irrigation district be regarded in
any view as owners of common property
They have one thing in common, that
their lands are arid. But so far as phys
ical conditions are concerned any one OF
the tracts in a district may be watered
without watering any others. 1t can only
be said that none of the lands in the dis
trict can be provided with water for irriga-
ton without providing it for all of the
lands in the sense of finance, or, in other
words, that it is practically impossible to
raise funds necessary for providing a water
system unless all the landowners in the |
district contribute.
But is this a reason, in law, for COM
pelling an owner to contribute? Mems
necessities or their financial difficulties in
establishing any business or enterprise
which might benefit community as we'll
as themselves have never been recognized
as a basis for levying taxes. Wherever
such an attempt has been made it has
failed. The United States Supreme
Court may discover no essential
difference between illegal taxation
to aid in the establishment of
and taxation to aid in the
establishment of orchards, vineyards or
farms. The presumption is prima facie
that an act of the Legislature is within the
scope of its powers. If an attack is made |
upon it it must demonstrate that it con-
travenes some particular provision of the |
If it is q matter of doubt /
The act viii stand. 1t will not be set aside |
unless it palpably conflicts with some con- |
limitation.
Promising these principles, our State |
Supreme Court holds that the Fastening of |
irrigation development is a matter in
which the public has such an interest as to
justify the levying of assessments upon
owners in districts for the pur-
pose. This is what NAV be called an ex-
treme liberal view of the general-welfare
clause. If the United States Supreme
Court shall adopt it it will be step aside
from the beaten path of that conservative
tribunal. l think it would be wise to do no
act not absolutely necessary for saving
rights and to cut off all possible expendi- |
lures consistent with this until the de- |
cision of the United States Supreme Court |
shall be announced"