The herald., 1895-05-19

on water bonds? Sometimes personal IL
lustrations are the best.
| have paid for ten years $36 per year
for the use of water for my hfty-foot iot
in Los Angeles. and today have no title
to or interest in one inch of water in this
city and will have to continue under the
present system as long as 1 live, leaving
to my children simply the right to BUY
water.
The man who pays his taxes in an irri-
| CATION district pays to that extent Tor MS
perpetual water right becoming part OF
land. When ne has paid through the
twenty years the cost OF the water 1T be-
longs forever to his land.
What are the relative cost OF wafer FUR
| nished by private individual and those
by an irrigation district?
No one who knows the scarcity OF water
| in Southern California expects TO Duy a
perpetual water right for his farm, plped
| to his very door, for less than Sl50 per
acre. and there is no instance in Southern
California where the water costing S5O
per acre has not ADDED much more than
that amount to the value of each acre.
An illustTation-Twol land holders living
on an arid plain wish to get water for
! their lands. One of them goes into an
irrigation district. because the location OF
his land is such that it can be irrigated
from supply that the district can com
mand, but in order to buy and pipe the
water. III is necessary 10 ooHu oho uioIii.'
for $50 per acre, the interest on when Is
to be paid annually. and after ten
years, one-tonth of the principal
is to be paid. thus paying the
bonded debt in twenty years. The other
mans lands have such an altitude that
they cannot be irrigated from the dis
trict's sources Of supply. He buys sim
liar water right piped to his lands at $50
per acre, payable on the same terms OF
those buying rights within the district;
he mortgages his land for the same. Are
not the obligations of the two holders
precisely the same? Both have mortgaged
their lands for water, and if the man In
the district has right to refuse to pay
taxes to meet his interest. has not the
one who has given mortgage for his
water the equal right to refuse to pay his
interest?
Everyone at all conversant with the
natural situation of the vast table
lands of the state of California
knows full we'll of the impossibility of
ever enrichins them with water by private
investment. 1t must be done by some leg
isative enactment which will invite capi-
tai to take the risk, with the assurance
that it shall be just so much protected by
law as if invested in the common lots OF
our progressive cities.
against the validity OF the Wright act is
that bonds issued under that act underlie
and take precedence over mortgages on
the same property. We ask, Do not tn"
state and every incorporated city hold on
every property lien for taxes super OF
to that held by mortgagee?
The supreme court OF the United ST; tes
in case of the PrOyident institution VS..
mayor of Jersey City, 113 U. s., ? sc
1120, decides that the state has the ri, hit
to make water rents lien on land. t. k
ing precedence over mortgages.
The successful carrying out of the
Wright act will bring all the waste places
of California into cultivation, but should
this benetcent law be set aside as uncon-
stitutional. then the coyote and his rich
copartner. the large landlord, will have a
joint tenancy Of the same for the next
twenty years.
JOHN SHIRLEY WARD.