The record-union., 1896-01-18
An IMPORTANT DECISION.
judgment in Favor Of Reclamation Dis
triCt No. 666.
Judge johnson Declares It to be q
Duly Acting and Quail
fed District.

PIE eX rel VS. DECENTRALIZATION OAS1~ ~-Ns 49,
sos.
This is an action Of quo warranto In
which it is alleged that the defendant
has been and is exercising corporate
powers contrary to law.
The defendant in its defense claims 20
be a duly acting and qualified Swamp
Land Reclamation District by virtue OF
an order Of the Board of Supervisors
of Sacramento County made on the oth
day Of December, 1893. I have ex-
amined the proceedings had IN that De-
half before the board leading up TO the
making Of the order, can see no op-
1ections to any of them and conclude
that the formation of District 900 was
regular and in accordance with the
statute provided upon that subject The
question then to be considered by the
court is whether the board had Jurlsdle-
tion Of the matter.
The plaintiff denies that it had any
such jurisdiction for the reason that on
the 8th day Of September, 1898, there
was already in the territory embraced
in District 500 three swamp land dis
tricts Plaintiffs contend that one of
the other of these districts had a cor
porate existence at that time, and if
matter when it created District No. 556,
and its action in that behalf was Illegal
and void, and the district could have no
legal standing.
First-That at the time Of defendants
organization there existed Swamp Land
District No. s, in which were included
all the lands included in defendants
boundaries, and that defendant had not
complied with Section 34S1, Political
Code. That is that it did not recog-
nize the existence of No. S in its petit
tion, nor show that more than two
thirds of the owners of the lands in
District No. 556 were represented. That
1t did not show that the lands embraced
in $50 was susceptible of one mode of
reclamation, etc.
Second-That at said time there ex-
listed Swamp Land District No. 75, in
which were embraced all of the land in
cluded in 556 and that defendant had
not complied with the said provisions
of Section 34S1 of the Political Code,
etc.
Third-That at said time there ex-
listed Swamp Land Reclamation Dis
trict No. 213, all the lands of which
were included in District 500, and that
defendant had not complied with the
provisions of said Section 34S1
tt becomes necessary for us to ex-
anime the status of each of these dis
tricts in turn and if any one of them
had such existence on the 8th of Sep
tember, 1898, then defendant has no
valid existence and judgment must be
for plaintiff
District No. 556 claims to have been
organized under Section 3446, Political
Code, and not under 34S1. In other
words, in its organization the existence
of any other organization was ignored.
and the proceedings taken were as If
no other district existed.
Plaintiff claims that District No. 8
was organized under the provisions of
the Act of May 13, 1861. That was
An Act to provide for the reclamation
and segregation of swamp and over
flowed and salt marsh and tide lands
donated to the State of California by
Act of Congress" BY it's provisions a
Board of Swamp Land Commissioners
were appointed who had general super
vision over all swamp land matters.
Section 4 provided that when petit
tions should be received from the own
ers of one-third of the acreage of any
tract susceptible of one mode or sys-
TEN of reclamation, it became their
duty to appoint an engineer to make the
proper surveys and make estimates of
the probable cost of reclamation, and
upon the presentation of his report
the Board of Commissioners are direct
ed to proceed in the work Of reclama-
ton; but the Act nowhere provides for
the formation of reclamation districts
in the sense that term is now used. 1t
simply provided for the grouping of
certain tracts susceptible of one mode
Of reclamation. In doing so the board
seemed to have numbered them in their
successive order. But no powers were
given to any of these organizations,
and the tracts attempted thus to be re-
claimed were a part of the general
system controlled by the Commission
ers.
The Legislature of 1S66-67, Statutes
1S65-66. page 799, passed an amend
ment to the Act of 1861 whereby the
Board of Swamp Land Commissioners
were abolished, and the Board of Su-
pervisors of the several counties were
constituted a Board of Swamp Land
Commissioners for the lands in their
respective counties, but made no
changes as to the formation of recla-
nation districts. The Legislature Of
1S63-64 passed several Acts amenda-
tory of the Act of 1861 whereby the
funds received for any particular dis
trict should be set apart for that dis
trict, and in a special Act provided for
the reclamation Of District No. 2. .(Stat-
utes 1S63-64. page 2S7.) In this last
Act reference is made to District No. s
by providing that Controllers warrants
drawn on its funds should bear ten (1O)
per cent. interest Plaintiff claims that
this last reference is sufficient to estab-
lish a district by implication. But I take
If that implication must be at least spe-
cifc in its Interpretation. and at the
time there was no authority by law to
create a district, as that term is now
understood, that the implication could
do nothing more than the statute it.
self.
thus matters stood until the adop-
ton Of the so-called Green Act. (Stat-
utes of 1S67-6S, page 500 Section II
of that Act, by sweeping and at the
same time specific provisions. repealed
all former statutes upon that subject.
Hence any district or organization that
depended upon the former. Acts for
their existence ceased to exist with the
Act creating them.
Section 43 of that Act provided that
such districts as had an existence at
that time might proceed to organize un-
der its provisions. Up to this time there
was no provision for the organization of
districts for reclamation with corporate
mowers. This Act for the first time pro-
vided for such, and organized two
classes from which they might be