The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-11-17
THE MODESTO APPEAL CASE WAS
DISMISSED.
A Judgment by the Highest Trib-
unaI Which is of Great Import
ance-Points Upon Which the
Learned Justices Difered-Opin-
ions Handed Down by Pec<ham and
Brewer-Chief Justice Fuller and
Justice Field Dissent.

! law has been pronounced to be con-
sstatrrtfonal and valid by the supreme
court Of the United States and the
validity of $16,OOO.0 900 of bonds issued
hereunder affirmed. The decision was
announced in the supreme court today
by justice Peckham, in the case OF
the Fall Brook Irrigation District et
al. VS.. Maria King Bradley and nus
band, appealing from the circuit court
of the southern district of California
There was another appeal before the
court also involving the same law,
disposed of at uoday's session of the
supreme court, which came from the
supreme court of the state, William
Tregea VS.. the Modesto Irrigation Dis
trict. The courts below entered dia-
metrfcally opposite Judgments, the cir
cuit court holding shat the law was
unconstitutional and the supreme Of
the state holding that it was const:-
Iutional. The Tregea case had been
before the supreme court of the United
States for more than two years and
after having been argued once was
coo-eo4AO 4N1 cdA-t-AOl al 0Al4C4lN III NOiA
nection with the FAN Brook case. The
argument took place last April, ex-
President Harrison supporting the law.
The compliments IN the two cases
attacked the law on the ground that
it was unconstitutional, violating both
the state and federal constitutions, the
latter in effect that il took away pr
vate property without due process OF
law. Judge McKenna of the circuit
COURT decided that the act cid prac-
tically take the property of the Brad
leys, who are alien residents of San
Diego county, without due process of
law, and granting the injunction asked
for.
In the opening disposing of the case
Justice Peckham refers to the vast ex
tent of the ''arid region" and =Ne great
Importance to those residing in ii of
the scheme to improve its condition
by irrigation. Taking the California
law as a model. he Said, that seven or
eight other states in the arid belt had
passed similar laws, to assess lands
for the cost of constructing irrigating
orks and condemnfnG other lands for
the right of way of these works, pro-
ceedings under which were awaiting
the result Of the pending legislation.
One of the points adopted by counsel
was that the irrigation Of a1td lands
was not a public purpose and THIS was
discussed in the opinion at length in
connection with the power c. thle
legislature to pass a law providing for
TIE accomplishment of that purpose.
The supreme court found no difficulty,
Justice Peclzlham said, in coming to
the same conclusion reached by the
California court-thaG the irrigation
of arid lands is public purpose when
the water thus used IS puc TO public
use, and that an act providing for ir-
rig,atfou is a valid exercise Of the legs
lativc power.
A second objection urged by the
property owners was that the opera
tons to the act need not be and are
not limited to arid, unproductive lands,
but include within it's possibilities all
lands, no matter how fertile or pro-
ductive, so long as they are susceptible
lin their natural state" to one mode
of irrigation from d common source,
the special point being that it was I'M
lawful to include the city of Modesto
in an irrigation district. But the su-
preme court of California said it was
undoubtedly intended by the legis-
lature that cities and towns in proper
cases should be included in such dis
tricts 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 SUI
preme court of the United States held
that it provided for a hearing of the
land owner 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 valu-
alton and assessment of and upon his
land included in the district. AS to
other matters, the district could be
created without notice to any one.
"Our conclusion is that the act, as
construed with reference to the objec-
tons considered under this third head,
is unassailable.'
The fourth and final objection was as
to the basis of assessment upon the
lands benefited, that it amounted to
a taking of the property of the citizen
without due process of law. Regarding
this, the opinion says: The method of
assessments here provided for are
about 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 reason hold the objection here con-
sidered to be untenable."
The judgment of the circuit court
was therefore overruled and the case
remanded for further proceeding not
with the opinion of the su-
prenle court of the United States.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice
Field, it was announced, dissented
from the opinion of the court.
The decision of the court in the case
from the Modesto district, which came
from the supreme court of the state, |
was announced by Justice Brewer. The