The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-25
COURT ROOM WAS FILLED
AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE
UNABLE TO GAIN ADMISSION.
Great Interest Manifested I'm the APP
and I'm What He Had to Say.

beseged. Owing TO the very limited space
in the old Senate chamber, where the Su-
preme Court sits, the public was generally
disappointed and few persons gained ad-
mission. In the court room were quite
number of Senators and Representatives
and some of the most prominent members
of the bar of the country, including Mr..
Joseph Choate, OF New York. Mr.. Harrf-
son appeared just after the marshal had
called the court to order. He took seat
at a table Immediately in front of the
Chief Justice. and, sitting there, in the
presence of many famous men. he i'm
mediately became the target of all eyes.
1t was his first public appearance in Wash
ington since he left the White House three
years ago. His appearance had changed
but slightly. The careworn look had dis
appeared and time, seemingly, had dealt
kindly with him. There was the same soft,
gray hair, and beard almost white; the
clear, pallld complexion and the bright, gray
eyes He wore pair of ordinary spectacles,
and consulted his notes freely while Judge
Rhodes, who had preceded him, was speak
ing
There was a great array of legal talent
on both sides of the case. Mr.. Harrison ap-
peared as special counsel in the case In
favor of sustaining the constitutionaiity of
the Wright act, representing interested
bondholders. The regular counsel in favor
OF sustaining the law were Judge Rhodes,
r. Percy Wright OF California, and John F.
Dillon of New York, and against the law
Joseph Choate of New York, r. II. Bond
and George H. Maxwell of California.
APPEARANCE WHILE SPEAKING.
Mr.. Harrison entered on his argument as
soon as Judge Rhodes had finished. He
stood at the table, and, with his coat
thrown back and hands plunged at times in
his pocket, at others resting on his hips or
pushed out on the desk in front of him, he
spoke with an earnestness and an air of
what might be almost termed pugnacity
that is characteristic of the ex-Presdent.
His voice seemed weak as he began, but it
became clear and firm as he proceeded.
In opening he wasted no time. but went to
the heart of the contention at once. In bat
tie, he said, after the woods had been
shelled and the lines of the enemy located,
the issue was fought out in very narrow
compass. The details of the case had been
exhaustively placed before the court, he
said, and he would therefore confine himself
to what he regarded as the vital issue-the
taxing power of the State. That power he
regarded as full. 1t was proper that the
State should undertake to control the water
supplies in the interest Of its people and 10
distribute through it's delegated representa-
tives-boards of directors incorporated un-
der it's law. Mr.. Harrison called attention
10 the vast interests hinging on the decision
in this case, as a number of other States
with irrigation districts had followed the
suit of California and had passed laws al
most identical with the Wright act.
During his argument the ex-President
said he though there were a few general
principles and a few subordinate causes
growing out of decisions of the Supreme
Court which were applicable TO the pres
ert case These he regarded as tax cases
The power exercised in both cases was the
same. 1t was the power of taxing a por-
ton of the property of citizen for the
use OF the State. If anything was clear
made clear by reason, by decisions of this
court, it was that the taxing power of the
State was full one. IL found it's only
limitation in the statement of the Consti-
tuition of the United States. The power of
a State to levy a general tax and provide
for the levy of a specific tax was full and
could not be challenged. In the matter of
this special assessment it had always been
recognized that its absolute equity had been
admitted.
A POINT AT ISSUE.
General Harrison referred to steps taken
to see what could be done with the arid
lands and said these land were valueless
without water. Under the ordinary land
laws of the United States, how" he asked
could we ever have brought out their
fertility? There must be some combina-
government must interfere, or the United
States through its public officers must con-
sent to put vast tracts of these lands into
the hands of individuals. 1t is simply a
question of whether this is to be-in the
hands of a private corporation or the public
There is no other way 10 make the land
holder independent. He .s other
wise a serf. should the water supply
be in the hands of private corpofation. A
certain portion of the stock should be made
appurtenant to the land to be irrigated, SO
that ever-s land owner becomes a stock
holder in the irrigation company. The peo-
pie who own the land choose board of
directors and have the management and
control of the whole effect. They are freed
by this participation from the threat or
apprehension of the control by those who
ton was enacted nearly ten years ago, and
has been constantly exercised ever since and
copied by other States He regarded as
sufficient notice TO all parties the presenta-
ton of the petition and the fixing of day
on which it would be heard by the board of
supervisors. He referred to a number of
decisions of courts where such notice had
been decided to have been adequate.
In concluding his remarks. the ex-Presi-
dent said il rested with the Legislature,
unless restricted by constitutional pro-
vision, to determine in what manner the
funds should be raised when public work
was to be organized. Counsel on the other
side contended that the Wright act took
property without due process of law. be-
cause, as this court had said in the case
of the Missouri Pacific railway VS.. Hume.
| il was not within the legitimate scope OF
| legislative power. 1t was a settled principle
| of universal law, they contended. 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
l the exercise Of that power and inseparably