Omaha daily bee., 1896-11-18
WRIGHT LAW IS UPHELD
Justice Peckham Hands Down Decision Of
Widespread Interest
SUPREME COURT DECIDES IMPORTANT CASE
Right OF state To Tax Property IN
Irrigation Districts for Inter-
nal improvements IL
Sustained.

| States supreme court today rendered an
opinion sustaining the constitutionality OF
! the Wright irrigation law OF California, and
ovcrrultng the decision 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 that Of the Fail Brook lrriga-
tion company against Maria King Bradley. II
has attracted widespread interest through
out the Rocky mountain and coast regions
because of its Importance to the material
interests of the entire arid belt; and in the
| central west and east the suit gained
prominence through the fact that eX-Presi-
dent Harrison was one of the counsel who
argued the case before the supreme court,
whose decision has been awaited for months,
having been pending a considerable part OF
the preceding term of the court
Justice PCckham 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
its conclusions but simply announced that
| 1t had decided to uphold the law.
There were two cases before the supreme
court involving the constitutionality OF the
Wright law permitting the state of Cali
fornia to be divided into irrigation districts
and property in the districts taxed for the
construction of irrigation works. One OF
/ these involved the Fall Brook Irrigation
district and the other the Modosti district.
The same points were raised in both, but
the FAN Brook case was appealed from the
decision of the federal circuit court while
the Modesti case was brought up from the
California state supreme court. In the
federal court the decision was against tho
| Wright law, while in the state court that
law was sustained. Todays decision will
apply to both suits.
the impOTtaupp of the lpPiG0u IL mot
confined to the state of California. but
Affects the irrigation interests Cf the entire
semi-ard region, many Of the states OF
which have adopted that form. The case
also involved the broad constitutional ques-
tion of the right OF taxation and the taking
OF private property without due process OF
law. Nest of the Irrigation districts have
out large bond issues which are affected by
the decision.
HOW THE CAUSE ORIGINATED
The Fail Brook case was brought from
the federal court because Mrs b, adley wgs
an alien. Justice Peckham, IN his written
opinion, said that action was commenced
by Mrs. Bradley for the purpose of prOcur-
ing an injunction restraining the collector
Of the irrigation district from giving a deed
to the premises belonging to Mis-. Bradley,
based on a sale of her land made by the
collector for the nOn-payment of certain
assessment upon her lands under the act
Incorporating the irrigation district and to
set aside such assessment and for other
relief on the ground that the act incor-
poratiug the irrigation district was In vio-
lation of the constitution of the United
States, and also of the California state
constitution.
One of the principal objections made to
the law was that the water taken under 1t
was not for public use. The court in it's
decision today glyCe this objection the first
place in its consideration. On this point
Justice PCckham said:
ITO provide for the irrigation OF lands
in states where there is no color of necessity
therefor, within any fair meaning of the
term and simply for the purpose of gratfy-
ing the taste of the owner or his desire to
enter upon the cultivation of an entirely
new kind OF crop not necessary for the
purpose of rendering the ordinary cutiva-
tiOn of the land rcmunerative might be re-
garded by the courts as an improper eXCr-
else of legislative will and the use might
not be held to be public in any cOnsttu-
tional sense, no matter how many owners
were interested in the scheme On tho
other hand, in state like California. which
COnfessedly embraces millions of acres OF
arid lands, an act of the legislature pro-
viding for their irrigation might well be
regarded as an act devOtng the water to a
public use, and therefore as valid exercise
of the legislative power.
THE people OF California and the mem
bers of her legislature must in the nature OF
things be more familiar with the facts and
circumstances which surround the subject
and with the necessities and the occasion for
the irrigation OF the lands than can any ono
be who is n stranger to her soil This
knowledge and familiarity must have their
due weight with the state COurts which are
to pass upon the question of public use in
the light of the facts which surround the
subject In their own state. For these
reasons. while not regarding the matter as
concluded by these various declarations and
acts and decisions of the people and legs-
lature and courts of California, We yet in
consideration of the subject, accord to and
treat them with very great respect and We
regard the decisions as embodying the de-
libcrate judgment and matured thought OF
the courts of that state on this subject
"Viewng the subject for ourselves and in
the light of these considerations we have
very little difficulty In coming to the same
conclusion reached by the courts OF Cali
fornia. The use must be regarded as a
public use or else It would seem to follow
that no general scheme Of irrigation can be
formed nr carried into effect"
PUBLIC USE OF WATER.
Continuing on this line, Justice Peckham
said:
While the consideration that the work of
irrigation must be abandoned II the use OF
the water may not be held to be or con-
stitute public use Is not TO be regarded as
conclusive I'm favor of such use yet that
fact Is in this case most important consid-
Grafton. Millions of acres Of land, otherwise
cullivable, must be left in their present
arid and worthless condition and an ef-
fCCtual obstacle viii therefore, remain in
the way of the advance of u large portion
OF the state In material wealth and pros
perity. To irrigHtc and thus to bring into
possible use these large masses of other
wise useless land will seem to be n matter
OF public interest, hot confined to the land
owners, or even to any one section of tho
state. The fact that tho use Of the water
IS limited to the use OF the land owner IL,
thereforc not fatal objection to this leg
isIatlon. 1t Is not essential that the entire
community, or even any considerable por-
tlon thereof, should directly enjoy or pnr-
tCipate in an Improvement I'm order 10 con-
stitute n public use. All landowners I'm the
district have the right 10 "A pToportionate
snare of the water and no one landowner
Is favored above his fellow A. his right
TO the use of the water. n ~ not uocrs-
sary In order that the uses should be public
that every resident In the district should
nave the right 10 the use Of tho water
Referring to the objection that under tho
act the irrigation of lands need not DO
limited to those which are IN fact produc-
tive, the opinion says:
The legislature by this act has not Itself
named any Irrigation district and, OF
course has not decided as 10 the nature
and quality of any specific lands which
have been included In any such district.
II has given a general statement MS 10
what conditions must exist IN order TO
permit the inclusion OF any land Within
a district, The land which can properly
be so included Is, as We think, su.utIrntIy
limited In It's character by the provisions