The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-11-17
BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
INVOLVED IN A SUPREME
COURT DECISION.
IRRIGATION LAW HELD VALID,
DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY
TIE FINDING.
MILLIONS OF ACRES IN QUESTION.
appropriation of Property Without
Due Process of Law the Prfn-
cipIe at Stake.

WASHINGTON, NOV. 16.-Ihe Uulted
States supreme court today rendered
an opinion sustaining the constitu-
tionality Of the Wright irrigation law
of California, and overruling the de-
cision of the United States circuit
court for the California district, which
was against the laws validity.
The case in which the opinion was
rendered was thtat Of the Fall Brook
Irrigation company against Maria King
Bradley. It has attracted widespread
interest throughout the Rocky noun
tains and Pacific coast region, because
of it's Importance to the material in
terestS of the entire belt, and in the
Central West and East the suit
gained prominence through the fact
that ex-President Harrison was of
counsel who argued the case before
been awaited for months, having been
pending considerable part of the pre-
ceding term of the court.
Justice Peckham delivered the
courts decision today. He departed
from the usual custom Of the justices
in that he did not read the opinion
on which the court based it's conclu-
sion, but simply announced that 1t had
decided to uphold the law.
There were two cases before the SUI
preme court involving the constitution
ality Of the Wright law permitting the
State Of California to be divided into
irrigation districts and property in the
districts taxed for the construction OF
irrigation works. One of these in
volved the Fall Brook irrigation dis
trict, and the other the Modesto dis
trict. The same points were raised in
both, but the Fall Brook case was ap-
pealed from the decision Of the federal
circuit court, while the Modesto case
was brought up from the California
state supreme court.
In the federal court the decision was
against the Wright law, while in the
state court that law was sustained
Today's decision will apply to both
suits. The Importance of the decision
is not confined to the State of Califor-
MIA, but affects the irrigation interests
of the entire semi-arid region, many OF
the states of which have adopted the
law. The case also involved the broad
constitutional question of the right OF
appropriating property by taxation
Most of the irrigation districts have
out large bond issues which are af-
fected by the decision.
The Fall Brook case was brought
from the federal courts because Mrs.
Bradley was an alien. Justice Peck
ham, in his written opinion said that
action was commenced by Mrs. Brad
ley for the purpose of securing an in
junction, restraining the collector of
the irrigation district from giving a
deed to it Of the premises belonging to
Mrs. Bradley, based on a sale of her
land made by the collector for nonpay-
ment of a certain assessment upon such
lands under the act Incorporating the
irrigation district and to set aside such
nd on c
ground that the act incorporating the
irrigation district was in violation of
the constitution of the United States
and also of the California state consti-
tuition.
QUESTION OF PUBLIC USE.
One of the principal objections made
to the law was that the water taken
under it was not for public use. The
court in its decision today gives this
objection the first place in its consider
alton. On this point, Justice Peckhan
said:
To provide for the irrigation of lands il
states, where there is no color Of necessit!
therefor, within any fair meaning of the term
and simply for the purpose of gratifying thu
taste Of the owner or his desire to enter upo1
the competition Of an entirely new kind o
CROP not necessary for the purpose of render
ing the ordinary cultivation Of the land rea
sonably remunerative, might be regarded b.
i've will, and the use might not be held t.
be public, in any constitutional sense, no mat
| ter how many owners were interested in tn
| scheme. On the other hand, in a state lik
! California which confessedly embraces mill
! ions of acres of arid lands, an act of the leg
| islature providing for their irrigation nigh
well be regarded as an act devoting the waite
| to public use, and, therefore, as a valid eXer
| else of the legislative power. The people o
| California and the members of her Legislature
| must, in the nature Of things, be more famil
| lar with the facts and circumstances whicl
| surround the subject and with the neces
| stiles and the occasion for the irrigation of tn
| lands than can any one be who is strange
| to her SOIL This knowledge and familiarit
must have their due weight with the stat
| courts which are to pass upon the question
| of public in the light Of the facts whcl
i surround the subject in their own state. Fo
| these reasons, while not regarding the mat
| ter as concluded by these various declaration
| and acts and decisions of the people, AM
| legislature and courts Of California, we yet
/ in consideration of the subject accord t
! and treat them with very great respect, an
we regard the decisions as embodying tn
deliberate judgment and matured thought o
| the courts of that state on this question
/ Viewing the subject for ourselves and in tn
| light Of these considerations, we have YER
| little difficulty in coming to the same con
J illusions reached by the courts of California
! The use must be regarded as public use
or 1T would seem to follow that gen
eral scheme of irrigation can be formed o
/ carried into effect.
While the consideration that the work o
| irrigation must be abandoned if the use
| the water may not be held to be or con
stitute a public use, is not to be regarded a
conclusive in favor of such use, yet tina
| fact is in this case most important con
sideration. Millions of acres of land otherWiS
! cultivable must be left in their present ari
and worthless condition and an effectual oh
stacle will therefore remain in the way of III
| advance Of a large portion of the state i
material wealth and prosperity. To irri
| gate and thus to bring into possible cultivation
| these large masses OF otherwise WORTHLESS
lands would seem to be a public purpose an
matter Of public interest not confined
| the land owners or even to any one sectio
Of the state. The fact that the use Of waite
is limited to the land owner is not there
| fore fatal objection to this legislation.
1t is not essential that the entire commun
ity or even any considerable portion therec
should directly enjoy or participate in a
improvement in order to constitute a publ
use. All land owners in the district have tn
| right to a proportionate share of water an
no one land owner is favored above his fello7
in his right to the use of the water.
! is not necessary, in order that the shoul
| be public. that every resident in the dis
| trict should have the right to the use of tn
water.
IRRIGATION NOT LIMITED.
Referring to the objection that unde
| the act the irrigation of lands need nc
be limited to those which are in fac
unproductive, that opinion says:
The legislature by this act has not itse
named any irrigation district and, of cours
has not decided to the nature and qualit
| of any specific lands which have been fl
cluded in any such district it has given
| general statement as to what conditions mus
exist in order to permit the inclusion
any land within a district. The land whic
can properly be so included is, as we thinl
sufficiently limited in it's character by tn
| provisions Of the act. 1t must be suscept
bic of one mode of irrigation from a commo
| source and by the same system of works an
| 1t must be of such a character that it wi
be benefited by irrigation by the system
be adopted. This, as we think means thu
| the amount of benefit must be substantial an
| not limited to the creation cf an opportunit
| to thereafter use the land for a new Kin