The San Francisco call., 1896-11-17

litigation extending over a period OF five
or six years, the California statute locally
known as the Wright irrigation law has
been pronounced to be constitutional and
i. valid by the Supreme Court of the United
States, and the validity of Sic, 1000, 600 of
bonds issued hereunder affirmed.
The decision was announced in the Su-
preme Court to-day by Justice Peckham,
in the case of the Fallbrook Irrigation
District ct al. VS.. Maria King Bradley and
husband, appealing from the Circuit Court
for the Southern District of California.
There was another appeal before the
court also involving the same law, dis
posed OF at to-day's session of the Supreme
Court, which came from the Supreme
Court of the State-William Tregea vs. the
Modesto Irrigation District. The courts
below entered Numerically opposite judg-
ments, the Circuit Court holding that the
law was unconstitutional and the Su-
preme Court of the State holding that it
was constitutional.
The Tregea case had been before xthe
Supreme Court of the United States for
more than two years, and after having
been argued once was assigned for another
argument, in connection with the Fall
brook case. The argument took place last
April, ex-President Harrison supporting
the law.
The com mplainants in the two cases at
tackled the law on the ground that it was
unconstitutional, violating both the State
and Federal constitutions, the latter in
effect that it took away private property
without due process of law. Judge
McKenna OF the Circuit Court decided that
the act did practically take the property
OF the Bradleys, who are alien residents of
San Diego County, without due process of
law, and granted the Injunction asked for
In the opinion, disposing of the case
Justice Peckham refers 10 the vast extent
of the '.arid region" and the great i'm
.portance to those residing in it, of the
scheme TO improve its condition by irriga-
lion. Taking the California law as a
model, he said seven or eight other States
IN the arid belt had passed similar laws
10 assess lands for the cost of constructing
jrrigating works and conde ming other
lands for right of way OF these works,
proceedings under which were awaiting
the result Of the pending litigation.
One OF the points made by the counsel
was that the irrigation of arid lands was
not public purpose, and this was dis
cussed in the opinion at length in con-
nection with the power of the Legislature
10 pass law providing for the accom-
plishment of that purpose. The Supreme
Court found no difficulty, Justice Peckham
said, in coming to the same conclusion
reached by the California State Court
that the irrigation of arid lands is a public
purpose. that the water thus used is put
to public use, and that an act providing
for irrigation is valid exercise of the
legislative power.
A second objection urged by the prop
erty-owners was that the opera tions of the
act need not be and are not limited to
arid, unproductlve lands, but include
within its possibilities all lands, no mat
ter how fertile or productive, SO long as
they are susceptible '1n their natural
state" 10 one mode of irrigation from
common source, the special point being
that it was unlawful to include tho CITY of
Modesto in an irrigation district. But the
Supreme Court of California said it was
undoubtedly intended by the Legislature
that cities and towns in proper cases
should ne included in such districts. and
that the act thus construed did not violate
the State constitution, and that view of
the law the Supreme Court of the United
States adopted.
AS to the construction of the act upon
the third point raised the Supreme Court
Of the United States held that it provided
for hearing of the landowner both as to
the question whether his land would be
benefited by the proposed irrigation, and
when that had been decided in favor of
the benefit then upon the question of
valuation and assessment of and upon his
land included in the district As to other
matters the district could be created with
out notice to any one.
."Our conclusion" says the decision, sis
that the act, as construed with reference
10 the objections considered under this
third head, is unassailable.'
The fourth and final objection was as to
the basis of assessment upon the lands
benefited, that il amounted to a taking of
the property of the citizen without due
process of law. Regarding this the
opinion says:
"The method of assessment here pro-
yided for may not be the best which could
have been adopted in order to accomplish
the most equal and exact justice which
the nature of the case permits. But none
the less we are unable to say that it runs
counter to any provision of the Federal
constitution, and we must, for that rea-
son. hold the objection here considered to
be untenable.'
The Judgment of the Circuit Court was,
therefore, overruled, and the case re-
manded for further proceeding not incon-
sistent with the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Field,
1t was announced, dissented from the
opinion of the court.
The decision Of the court in the case of
the Modesto district, which came from
Athe Supreme Court of the State. was an
nounced by Justice Brewer. The constr.
tltionality of the law, he said, had been
settled by the decision in the Fallbrook
case, and the Modesto case was disposed
OF priehy on the ground that it presented
no question for the Supreme Court of the
united States to decide. The proceedings
from which Tregea appealed simply gave