The herald., 1896-11-17
THE irrigation IAN
IS CONSTITUTIONAL
The Supreme Court Gives
a Decision
ON APPEAL FROM Federal COURT
The Opinion Covers All tho
Other Cases
THE CALIFORNIA COURTS
Are Upheld in Their Interpretation q
Public Use
Otherwise No General Scheme d Irrifatieo
Is Possible
The Decision Means Hardship to Soma.
individuals, But Rapid Increase in
the Development of Lands
THE CALIFORNIA COURTS
Are Upheld in Their Interpretation @
Public Use
Otherwise No General Scheme d Irfifstles
Is Possible
The Decision Means Hardship to Soma
individuals, But Rapid Increase in
the Development of Lands
Formerly Called Desert. ~
Associated Press Special wir.

Associated PreSS Speclal wire
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16.-The United
States supreme court rendered an opin.
ion sustaining the constitutionality Of
the Wright irrigation law of California,
and overruling the decision of the Unit
ed States circuit court for the California
district, which was against the laws
The case in which opinion was
rendered was that of the Fallbrook Irri-
cation company VS.. Mary King Bradley.
1t has attracted widespread interest
throughout the Rocky mountain and
coast regions, because of itaimportance
to the material interests of the entire
arid belt, and in the central west and
east the suit gained prominence through
the fact that ex-President Harrison was
of counsel who argued the case before
the supreme court whose decision has
been awaited for months, having been
pending considerable part Of the pre-
ceding term of the court.
There were two cases before the suv-
preme court involving the constitu-
tionality of the Wright law permitting
California to be divided into irrigation
districts to be taxed for the construction
of irrigation works. One of these involv-
ed the Fallbrook irrigation district ana
the other the Modesto district. Tho
same points were raised in both, but the
Fallbrook case was appealed from de-
the Modesto case was brought up from
cision Of the federal circuit court, while
the California state supreme court.
In the federal court the decision was
against the Wright law. while in the
state court the law was sustained. To-
days decision will apply to both suits.
The Importance of the decision II not
confined to the state Of California, but
affects irrigation interests of the entire
semi-arid regions of the many states
which have adopted the law. The case
also involved the broad constitutional
question of right of action and Of taking
private property without due process Of
law. Most Of the irrigation districts
have made large bond issues which are
affected by the decision.
The Fallbrook case was brought be-
fore the federal courts because Mrx
Bradley was an alien. Justice Peckham,
in his written opinion, said the action
W @S SCAAAASAASSA Ny ALL .. oIdQley lOE tlf0
purpose of procuring an injunction re-
the collector of the irrigation
district from giving deed to premises
belonging to Mrs. Bradley, based on the
sale of the lands made by the collector
for the non-payment Of a certain assess.
ment upon such lands under the act in.
cooperating the irrigation district, and
to set aside such assessment and for
other relief. on the ground that the act
Incorporating the irrigation district was
in violation of the Constitution of tho
United States and the Constitution Of
the state of California. One of the prin-
cipal objections made to the law was
that water taken under 1t was not for
public use. The court, in it's decision to.
day, gives this objection the first place
in its considerati tion. On this point Just
ice Peckham said:
ITO provide for the irrigation Of lands
In states where there is no color of ne.
cessity therefor within any fair meaning
OF the term, and simply for the purpose
Of gratifying the taste of the owner or
his desire to enter upon the cultivation
Of an entirely new kind of crop not nec-
essary for the purpose of rendering the
ordinary cultivation of the land remun-
erative, might be regarded by the courts
as an improper exercise of the Legislative
will, and the use might not be held to be
public in any constitutional sense, no
matter how many owners were interest,"
ed in the same. On the other hand, in .
state like California, which confessedly
embraces millions of acres, an act pro-
viding for their irrigation might well be
as an act devoting the water to
a public use, and therefore as a valid ex-
ercise of legislative power.
THE people Of California and mem-
bers of her legislative body" says the
opinion. must, in the nature of things,
be more familiar with the facts and cir
cumstances which surround the subject
and with the necessities and occasions
for the irrigation Of lands than can any
one be who is stranger to her SOIL This
and familiarity must have
their due weight with the state courts
which are to pass upon the question OF
public use in the light OF the facts which
surround the subject In their own. state.
For these reasons. while not regarding
the matter as concluded by these various
declarations and acts and decisions o1
the people and legislature and the courts
of California. we are yet, in considor1uR
the subject. to accord To ara tt&nt 11h<