The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-25

-. ! = ! -.
wAea ~ IS ~ @aN So So -
~ # es
tsH aaff
So m taH
tasaaa ma#H W* n m#es
49, 81 $50 Fess # So
m fhe has ~ nsAs Al
r. 49, aans "a % as4Fase aasaseaslasn
M W s feIs = - asef 80
ta Nas&a tha laaa h.sF ls.sassstsaH
4ie = staaFe s ssff sIseass ilIe wafeF
FaNkf D. n tae NaMsas 81 EF4Rafe raf-
rsfAtaoa. eeFtaa laFtlan - thH sfeek
sseaas - uas.as afFafffa4nt = a. iAnf
a. - iTflaafeH Tnus every lan1 ownrr 49,
cemes steckhalisr In fas .Fr.satien roul-
l.aa8. he Eesgle Nho oNn fhs l4na chopss
tssra - direetsrs ant have the manaEc-
m~nt an1 cuntrui - me shoie. They are
freed ~ this participation from the threat
or appTehenHion % control by those who
have NJ interest In the case. This legisia-
ton was enacted nearly ten years ago. and
has been constantly exercised ever since
and copied by the other states"
HE regarded as sufficient notice 20 all
parties the presentation OF the petition and
the n1ing OF a day upon which IL would be
heard by the board OF supervisors. That
gave them ample time TO make protests.
lie referred 10 a number of decisions of
courts whore such notices had been ee-
cided 10 have been adequate. In concluding
his remarks, the ex-president said IL rest
ed with the legislature. unless restricted
by a constitutional provision, TO determine
in what manner the funds should be raised
when a public work was to be organized.
Counsel on the other side contended that
the Wright act took the property without
.ftt. LAM 81 rfa
had said in the case OF the Missouri Pacific
Railway VS.. Hume. il was not within the
legitimate scope OF legislative power. Ii
was a settled principle of law. they con-
tended. and was the law OF the United
States, that the right to compensation
whenever private property was taken for
public use was an incident TO the exercise
OF the power, and inseparably connected
with II. Any attempt OF any legislature
20 levy assessments on property not COM
pensated by special benefits, or in excess
OF such benefits. or not proportionate
10 them. for the purpose of
construction OF local public
welfare, was therefore an excess OF legis-
Iative power and a violation of the four
teenth amendment. IL had been argued
as a reason why the Wright act should
be sustained, that II had been re-enacted
in other states. But the radical changes
from the Wright act which had been made
in the statutes referred TO. which were
framed In the light OF experience with the
practical operations of the Wright act.
strongly supported the argument that the
unconstitutional features OF the act made
~ Impossible for any such law TO
operate successfully. and showed that
these later statutes had sought
TO eliminate those constitutional
features of the Wright act which had
given rise to its most grievous expressions
and which would work the practical de-
struction Of any law embodying such pro-
visions II was also asserted that the su-
preme court OF California had held that by
Susceptible" was intended susceptible in
their natural state. and That was the only
mode Of construction under which they
could Justify the inclusion OF cities and
towns and property incapable Of irriEa-
tton. And the supervisors under that con-
struction could not exclude any lands
which ia their natural state were suscep-
title Of irrigation. If such lands had been
included within the districts by the pett-
tious In its foundation.
F,x-Presidcnt Harrison. accompanied by
his private secretary, Mr.. Thbetts, left the
city at 40 O'Clock this evening for Indian
apolis.