The record-union., 1896-01-25

1Aell CAL 4Co4OC11l AoClJdIilln I1Gl lSOia
was to appear as an advocate before the
Supreme Court of the United States in
the California irrigation cases was
largely responsible for the throng which
gathered about the chamber to-day. 1t
was announced before the court was
opened that the time for argument had
been a second time extended, and that
eight hours would be devoted to the
consideration of the cases. This ex-
tension, it was expected, would permit
r. Percy Wright, who has had charge
of the litigation in California, to take
part in the argument to-day, and give
Mondays session to Joseph H. Choate
and ex-Judge j. f. Dillon in which to
close the argument for the two sides, re-
spectively.
Ex-Chief Justice Rhodes of California
resumed his argument in support of the
irrigation law and the validity of the
proceedings of the several boards of
trustees Hereunder. He reviewed the
history of public improvements in va
rious parts of the country to illustrate
the contention that was not in itself
peculiar. although applied to irrigation,
and that this analogous legislation had
been, like the Wright law, sustained by
the courts.
Judge Rhodes spoke almost an hour,
and was followed by ex-President Har-
rison, who also advocated the consti-
tutionality of the law. He began his
argument by saying: Notwithstanding
all that has been said about these cases
as to their nature, they are in fact
nothing but tax cases, presenting the
question whether or not the State has
power by it's executive act to take a
portion of the citizens property for
the use of the public. If there is any
thing clearly established by the decis-
ions of this court, it is that the taxing
power of the State is a full one. the
only limitations of which is to be found
in the Constitution of the State or Of the
United States. If the power to levy the
tax is challenged, the court will look for
the limiting clause in the State or Fed
eral Constitution. If there is not found
something that contravenes the power
as used, then it must pass the court un-
challenged"
AS to the subject of the law, General
Harrison said that in his opinion there
was no matter of a clearer use and pur-
pose than that of irrigation, and it was
lation, to take charge Of the water sup
ply for the purpose of using it under
regulations for the Improvement and
development of the arid lands within
it's limits. If that legislation was so
constructed as to lie within the limita-
tions of the States authority and power,
then, said the speaker, it must pass the
court.
This court" he said, I'm an opinion
of Justice Field so often quoted. is not
a harbor of refuge for ships laden with
passengers dissatisfied as to the ex-
pediency or desirability of State legis-
lation.
General Harrison proceeded to dis
cuss the first and second sections of the
law to demonstrate his assertion that
the legislation was wholly within the
limitations placed upon the authority
and power of the State, and the SUI
preme Court of the State had SO con-
strued the statute several times, which
construction, he said, became part of
the statute for all the purposes of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
General Harrison occupied the atten-
ton of the court for a few minutes less
than an hour, speaking without inter-
ruptiOn. His argument was purely a
legal one. and because of that fact to
some extent a disappointment to his
listeners.
George H. Maxwell followed, speaking
for the aggrieved property-owners, who
invoked the protection of the Four
teenth Amendment against the opera
ton of the Wright law, and he by c. C.
Wright, the author of the law, in sup
port of the law.
Messrs. Maxwell and Wright did not
require all the remaining time of the
session in which to make their argu-
ments, and Mr.. Choate began the con-
cluding address in opposition to the
law at 3.45, speaking fifteen minutes
before the court adjourned until Mon
day The proposition on which he
should base his argument, he said. was
that irrigation for a district which did
not need it was not public use nor ne
cessity, and that law which provided
an irrigation system for district not
needing it, and assessed the contiguous
property to pay for it's construction,
was an unconstitutional law