Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1896-11-21
IMPORTANT DECISION TO IRRIGA-
TION INTERESTS.
California Inv for Bonding Dis
tricts Is Held to BE consul
tutiOnal.

sustaining the consttutlonaIlty VI LIN
Wright irrigation law Of Call1ornia, anC
everything the decision of the Unltec
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 Fall Brook lr'
rigation Company VS.. Maria King Brad
lev Tt has attracted widespread inter
est throughout the Rocky mountain anc
| coast regions, because of its Importance
to the material interests OF the entlre
arid belt: and in the central west anC
east the suit gained prominence through
tho fact that ex-President Harrison was
of the counsel who argued the case be-
fore the supreme court, whose decision
has been awaited for months, having peer
nending a considerable part of the pre-
ceding term of court.
Justice Peckham delivered the court 5
decision today. He departed from the
custom of the justices, in that he did not
read the opinion on which the court based
it's conclusion, but simply announced Il
had decided to uphold the law.
There were two cases before the SUI
Oreme court involving the constitutional
itv of the Wright law, permitting Cali
fornia to be divided into irrigation dis
tricts and property in the districts to be
taxed for the construction of irrigation
works One of these involved the Fail
Brook irrigation district, and the other
the Modesto district. The same points
were raised in both, but the Fall Brook
case was appealed from the decision OF
the federal circuit, while the Modesto case
was brought up from the California
state supreme court. In the fedora
court, the decision was against the
Wright law, while in the state court il
was sustained. Today's decision will ap
ply to both suits.
The importance of the decision is not
confined to the state Of California, but
affects the irrigation interests of the en-
tire COMMUNICATION section, many states
Of which have adopted the law. The case
also involved the broad constitutional
question Of the right of taxation and TAX
ing private property without due process
of law Most irrigation districts have
made large bond issues which are affect
ed by the decision.
fore the federal courts because Mrs
Bradley was an alien. Justice Peckham
in his written opinion, said action was
commenced by Mrs. Bradley for the pur-
pose of procuring an injunction restrain
ing the collector of the irrigation district
from giving a deed to premises belonging
to Mrs Bradley, based on the sale of hel
land made by the collector for the non
payment of certain assessments upor
such lands under the act incorporating
the irrigation district, and to set aside
| such assessment, and for other relief, or
the ground that the act for the incOrpora-
ton of the irrigation district was in vic
| lation of the constitution of the United
States and the constitution of the stacl
of California.
| One Of the principal objections mad;
to the law was that the water taken I'M
der it was not for public use. The cour
in it's decision today gives this objection
first place in consideration. On this poin
Justice Peckham said: ITO provide 70,
the irrigation of lands in states where
| there Is no color of necessity, and there
| fore, within any fair meaning of thu
term, simply for the purpose of crafty
| ing the taste of the owner or his desires
| to enter upon the cultivation of an en-
tirely new kind of crop not necessar!
| for the purpose of rendering ordinar!
cultivation Of the land remunerative
might be regarded by the courts as al
improper exercise of the legislative will
and the use might not be held to be pub
lie in any constitutional sense, no matte
how many owners were interested in tn
scheme On the other hand, in a stat
like California, which confessedly EN-
braces millions of acres of arid lands, IL
act providing for their irrigation nigh
well be regarded as an act devoting waite