New-York tribune., 1896-01-24
on the Jones bill is not likely. therefore. TO De had
before the end OF next week.
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
ARGUMENT ON THE CALIFORNIA IRRIGA-
TION CASES BEGUN.
EX-PREsIDENT HARRISON EXPECTED TO SPEAK
To-DAY-AN IMPORTANT INTERSTATE

Ex-PREsIDENT HARRISON EXPECTED TO SPEAK
To-DAY-AN IMPORTANT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CASE ARGUED.
Washington, Jan 23-Argument in the California
irrigation cases was begun In the Supreme Court OF
the United States this afternoon. These are the
cases which ex-President Harrison has been en-
gagged argue in support Of the constituiionaty OF
what is known the Wright Irrigation law of the
State of California. and which have been pending
In the court appeal from the Supreme Court OF
the State for three years. and on appeal
from the Circuit Court of the United States for
California since last spring The frst-named case
that Of William Tregeau against the board of a.
rectors of the Modesto Irrigation District, was
argued at the last term of court. and 1T s assumed
that the eight Justices who then constituted tho
Court divided the questions at issue, be-
cause 1t reassgncI for reargument before
full bench. 1t was later consolidated for argument
with the case of the Fall Brook Irrigation District
ct al against Maria King Bradley which had como
to the Court in the mean time on appeal from Judge
Ross's decision in the United States Circuit Court
The Supreme Court decided that the law was con-
stltutional while Judge Ross held that II was un-
constitutional. The parties to the litigation are
propertyowners an! the boards OF trustees OF the
respective irrigation districts the former complain
ing that assessments by the latter to pay the ex-
penses OF tho irrigation improvements and the con-
struction the latter their property constitute
a taking Of property without due process of law anl
a conversion of private property for public use with
out due compensation therefor. in violation of the
fourth and fifth amendments 10 the Constitution re-
spectvely.
Under the operations Of the law large number
OF bonds have issued by the boards of trustees
Of the several districts in anticipation of the as
sessments and the validity Of these Is drawn in
question. The cases have engaged the attention OF
an unusual number of well-known lawyers. who
were present in court to-day On motion OF ex-
tuo hours a1d
granted for argument. making six hours in ALL w. d.
Guthrie OF New York who made the opening speech
against income at the hearing last spring re-
ceved leave file brief by himself ana clarence a.
Seward on behalf of holders OF bonds interested
The argument begun near the close OF the
afternoon after the Brown-1Hterstate Commerce
habeas corpus had been finished IL was
opened by Thomas b. Bond Of California, attorney
for Tregeau. in opposition TO the law ana coh-
tinued by A. L. Rhodes, ex-Chief justice Of the Su-
preme Court California. counsel for the irrgauoh
districts in support Of the law. 1t was SHOWN
that the Wright law had been in force IN Cai'io'ina
ten years and its validity sustained by the supreme
Court Of the State in no less than seven cases Inc
law has been adopted in almost Identical language
in the States of Idaho Nebraska, Nevada, oregon
and Washington Judge Rhodes will finish his argu-
ment Tomorrow and will probably be followed py
George H. Maxwell. attorney for the properly
owners In the Fall Brook District case
General Harrison is expected to speak next ioi-
II Choate will finish the argument. which Will run
over into the session Of Monday. in behalf Of the
property-owners. This arrangement may De NafIeo,
however as several other counsel are present ana
it may be deemed best TO have them take part IN
the argument.
THE BROWN HABEAS CORPUS CASE.
The attention of the Supreme Court was engaged
this morning in the consideration. on oral argu-
ment of one of the most important cases on the
docket. 1t the appeal Of Theodore r. Brown
from the judgment Of the Circuit Court Tor the
Western District of Pennsylvania. refusing to cis-
charge him on writ of habeas corpus from the
custody Of w Walker. United States marshal
for the district named. 1t involved the consttu-
tionality OF the amendment to the Interstate Com
merce law made in the LID Congress in order TO
cure the defec; which made manifest. in the
Counsenan case Brown is auditor of the Allie
gheny Valley Railroad. and in an examination OF
certain office of the company by the Federal
Grand Jury at Pittsburg for alleged violation OF
the law he declined to answer certain questions
the ground that TO do so would tend TO crlmnate
him. invoking the constitutional guarantee for pro-
lection. The being reported to the Court
Brown directed to testify and again refusing
was held to be in contempt. He appealed to the
GCS for release on ma pu ha
custody. The witness adjudged TO be bound
Commerce r act Of W February IL iSss providing that
in cases arising under the Interstate Commerce
swering On the ground that his answer might tend
TO crlminate him. because It was provided but no
person shall be prosecuted. subject to any PEN
atty or forfeiture for or on account of any trans
action. matter or thing concerning which he may
testify or produce evidence. documentary other
wise. before said Commission IN obedience to its
subpoena. the subpoena of either Of them. In
any such cause proceeding.
The case was argued by James c. Carter, of New
York. for Brown. and by ex-senator Edmunds NOM
inally for the marshal but really for the Interstate
Commerce Commission The Importance Of the
case-for on its determination depends the success
ful enforcement of the law. well the reputa-
ton of the attorneys engaged-attracted to the
court a large attendance Of lawyers. The argument
wholly constitutional grounds