The record-union., 1896-11-17
So Declared in an Opinion Rendered by
the United States Supreme Court.
The Decision of Circuit Judge McKenna
Overruled.
The Ruling of the Supreme Court OF
California Upheld, and the Validity
of the Sixteen Million Dollars or
Bonds Issued Under the Act is
Affirmed.
Affirmed.

WASHINGTON, Nov 16.-After liti
cation extending over period of hVe
or six years, the California statute To-
cally known as the Wright irrigation
law has been pronounced to be consti-
tutional and valid by the Supreme
Court of the United States, and the
Validity of $4,000, 900 of bonds issued
hereunder affirmed. The decision was
announced in the Supreme Court to-day
by Justice Peckham in the case of the
Fallbrook Irrigation District ct al. ver-
sus Maria King Bradley and husband,
appealing from the Circuit Court of the
Southern District of California.
There was another appeal before the
court. also involving the same law, dis
posed of at to-day's session of the Su-
preme Court, which came from the Su-
preme Court of the State-William
Tregea versus the Modesto Irrigation
District.
The courts below entered diametrl-
cally opposite judgmeEts-the Circuit
Court holding that the law was uncon-
stitutional and the State Supreme
Court holding that it was conStitu-
tional. The Tregea case has been be-
fore the court for more than two years,
and after being argued once was as
signed for another argument in cOnnec-
don with the Fallbrook case The argu-
ment took place last April exPresi-
dent Harrison supporting the law.
The complainants in the two cases
attacked the law on the ground that 1t
was unconstitutional, violating both
the State and Federal Constitutions, the
1a- in, 40 "a.
property without due process of law.
Judge McKenna of the Circuit Court
decided that the Act did practically
take the property of the Bradleys, who
are alien residents of San Diego County,
without due process of law, and granted
the injunction asked for.
In the opinion disposing of the case.
Justice Peckham refers to the vast ex-
tent of the arid region" and the great
Importance TO those residing in it of the
scheme to improve its 2aness by ir1iga-
ton. Taking the California law as a
model. he said, seven or eight other
States in the arid belt had passed SINH
lar laws to assess lands for the cost of
constructing irrigating works and con-
demning other lands for right of way of
these works. proceedings under which
We're awaiting the result of the pend
ing litigation.
One of the points made by counsel
was that the irrigation of arid lands
was not public purpose, and this was
discussed in the opinion at length in
connection with the power of the Leg
fSlature 10 pass a law providing for the
accomplishment of that purpose The
Supreme Court found no difficulty, Jus
tice Peckham said, in coming to the
same conclusion reached by the Cali
fOrnia State Court-that the irrigation
of arid lands is a. public purpose; that
the water so used is put to public use,
and that an Act providing for irriga-
ton is a valid exercise of the legislative
power.
a second objection urged by the prop
erty owners was that the operations of
the Act need not be and are not limited
to arid unproductive lands. but include
within its possibilities all lands. no
matter how fertile or productive. so
lcng as they are susceptible lin their
natural state TO one mode of irrigation
from q common source, the special
point being that it was unlawful TO in
Guide the city Of Modesto in an irrfga-
ton district. But the Supreme Court
OF California said it was undoubtedly
intended by the Legislature that cities
and towns in proper cases should be in
cluded in such districts. and that the
fact 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 Su-
preme Court held that it provided for
hearing of the land owner both as Ia
the question whether his land would be
benefited by the proposed irrigation.
and when that had been decided in
favor Of the benefit thereupon the ques-
ton of valuation and assessment of
and upon his land included in the dis
trict. AS to other matters. the district
could be created without notice TO anv
one. Our conclusion is that the Act
as construed with reference to the OBJ
jections 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
taking of the property of the citizen
without due process of law. Regarding
this the opinion says: THE method Of
assessment here provided for may be
the best which could have been made 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 ii runs counter
TO any provision OF the Federal Con-
stitution. and we must for that reason
hold the objection here considered to
be untenable"
The Judgment Of the Circuit Court
was therefore overruled and the case
remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with the opinion of the
supreme Court Of the United States.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice
f1eld. II was announced, dissented from
the opinion of the court.
The decision of the court in the case
OF the Modesto District. which came
from the Supreme Court of the State,
was announced by Justice Brewer.
The consututionality of the law, he
said, had been settled by the decision
In the Falibrook case and the Modesto
case was disposed of briefly on the