Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-11-16
THE WRIGHT LAW VALID.
a,ral Broad Constitutional Cues
tons Involved.
u,IERriL INTERESTS AFFECTED
,e, only In California nut Through
cut the Rocky vonnsain
aud Coast Rssion.

w.snfsdToS, Nov. I8.-rho United
sl.,s. Supreme court has rendered an
,plplon sustaining the constitutional.
nv Of the Wright irrigation law OF
Calif,fnis, aud overriding the decision
Il the United States circuit court OF
California district, which war sgaIns,
the lax's validity.
The case In which tho opinion was
rendered was that Of tho Fsil Brook
Irrigation Compsny Va Maria King
Bndlsy. II has attracted Widespread
Interest thfou shout the Rocky Noun.
,.ln ADD coast rsgions, because Of its
Importance to thu material interests Of
Tho entire arid belt aud In central Yves,
lad east. The suit gained prom
lnsncs through tho fact that tx.
Ptsiaent Hsriison was ono Of the
counsel VINO argued the ease before
lss Supreme Court, whose decision has
tssn awaited ior months, having been
psbdlng for = considerable part OF tho
preceding term OF court. Justice
Pelham delivered tho cSurps decision
lOiAy. Ho departed from the custom
oi the Justices Ia that he DID noI read
The opinion on which the court based
NJ csnoluslon. but simply announced
that Il had decided to uphold the law.
There were two cases before the
huptms Court Involving the ooneti.
,niionsity Of the Wright law, psf
hitting California 10 be divided Into
litigation distfict@ anu tho property
IN the dlstrcis taxed for the Con-
iuuetibn VI Irrigation works. One OF
the suits involved tho Fall Brook Iffi.
cation district aud tbs other tbs
Modesti district Tho same pe'nt-
were raised In both, but the Fall
Brook csse wac appealed from the
utcision Of the federal circuit court,
while The hodstti case was brought
up from tho California state supreme
court. In the federal court the decision
was agAinsI the Wright law, while IN
the state ooaft tho law was sustained.
1oday's decision will apply 10 both
tui's. Tbs importsnoe OF Tho decision
i nDi confinei 10 the stats OF Cailtot.
mia but Affects tue irrigation interssis
VI the semI-Rrid regions, many states
VI which have adopted tue law.
The case also involved tho broad
constitutional question OF tho right OF
taxation anu taxing private property
Nl1houi due process Ut law. Most OF
the iffigAion districts have made
large bead htuee which afo affected by
the decision.
The Fall Brook casa was brought be.
loft Tho federal courts because Mfs.
bfadloy was an alien. Justice Peck.
nan, In his written opinion said
aeuon was commeseod by Mrs. Brad.
Wy Tor the purpose u procuring an
lblunetlon TostIaining the collector OF
me Irrigation district from giving q
lied 10 premises belonging 10 Mrs.
Bradley, based on the sAlo OF her
land by the collector for tho non.psy.
msnl of csfiain assessment upon such
land unusr the act incorporating the
lifigAtion district and to act aside such
hse''ment and for other relief, ON the
neund that the act incorporating the
nhs,uon District was In violation OF
we Conslltuien OF the United States
~ tue oonstitution OF tho state OF
california. One of the prlnclpal oh.
Nenons mace 10 the law wss that
sNeI 1aken under II was not Tor pull.
NC use. The court In its decision
pday glvss this objection the nr.t
pace IN tue confederation.
On this point Justice PeckhAtn said;
10 provide for the irrigation OF LANDS
20 .hles where there IL no color OF
necessity therefore, within nuy iair
meahlng Of tue term, anu sinpiy Tor
we purpose u gratifying tho owner, or
" sstlfe 10 enter upon tho cultivation
~ Al enuiely new kind Of crop, not
,nsessaAry Tor the purpose Of rendering
e ordinary cultivation VI land r..
ulueiauVe, might bo regarded by the
s.us as an linptOper exercise OF the
NANNo VIII, anu the use might not
nsla TO DO public In any coustitu.
u.nh sense, no mstter how many
nSNle's we're Interested In tho scheme.
~ thn other hand Ia q state like Cal.
loihlpi which c0nfessedly embraces
,pllhons Of acrss, an act providing Tor
hngallon might well DO regarded
&c. uoVoing the water TO public
IN ~ ,hoieIoFo an a valid exetclte Of
air s~hfN luWFIs
ine people OF California aud mem.
,e " her legislative t0dy musi, ia
S,,' A.uIe OF thingr, BIO moro familiar
w" iAe's anu circumstances
,bseh surround this subject and with
s hee,ssiti1s aud occAlion Tor irrl.
uon OF lands than can any one DO
: stranger t. hor soil, This
uavuleags and familiarity must nav.
vs, M uus weight with tue stat. court,
ouss,s. are to pass upon the
nam o. pobilo usr. In the
I1nn, ., Inc iacls which sur
,,a,hu tue subject In their own
ss, e, For These reasons, while nst NJ.
,suE the natter as conclud,d by
Sn@ various declarations and acis
slnt" l'!ohh OF tue people anu Iesls.
m cas. shu courts OF California, We Vel.
,psy,ssslusripg Tho tubleoI, accord 10
IN .. sh.m with very great respect
NJ h.