The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-28
.CHOATE ASSA|LS
THE WRIGHT ACT,
Inconsistencies in the Law
Pointed Out in Force
full Style.
UNJUST ASSESSMENTS.
Lands Taxed for Irrigation Pur.
poses Derive No Possible
Benefit.
RIGHTS OF PRoPERTY-owNERs.
It Is Claimed That the Law Clearly
Violates the Fourteenth
Amendment.
RIGHTS OF PRoPERTY-owNERs.

speech IN the opinion OF the lawyers pres
ent. The courtroom was crowded to hear
the eminent lawyer. Choate said:
at may be that irrigation of arid lands,
unpro6uctive without it, may be public
purpose warranting taxation or assess
ment in proper case, but irrigation OF
land that does not require irrigation, but
is merely desired by some owners to be
irrigated for the purpose of improving
land already fertile, or for the purpose OF
changing the uses of land from agriculture
to horticulture because it will be more
profitable and thus enhance the value OF
private property, cannot be public use.
The lands in Modesto and the Central irri-
CATION districts have been successfully
and profitably devoted for years to wheat
raising without irrigation, and in Modesto
district the city of Modesto has been Gre
ated within the district and all without
irrigation.
1.-The question now presented to the
court is not whether general system for
irrigation of arid lands might be carried
out by State. The question is whether
this particular statute, known as the
Wright act, as applied to such districts as
the Modesto or Central districts, outside
of the arid regions and productive without
irrigation, but formed for the mere pur-
pose of making lands within it more pro-
ductive or of enabling such of landowners
therein as desired to irrigate to convert
their lands from grain fields into orchards
or vineyards at the expense not of the par
ties benefited, but of all lands within the
district, whether benefited or not, or
hot o,- +aA =. aI,.
be irrigated at all. is a violation of the
fourteenth amendment.
"In the Fallbrook case Mrs. Bardle's
farm has been beneicially used without
irrigation, and she cannot be compelled by
law to change its use, or to bear the ex-
pense of providing irrigation for others
which she does not require. To take her
property for this purpose is nothing more
than robbery under the guise of law. The
principle which protects her is older than
the Magma Charta. 1t was handed down
on Mount Sinai in the shortest of COM
mandments: Thou shalt not stealT That
is what the fourteenth amendment says to
any community or State which seeks to in
wade the inalienable, individual rights of
property owners.
I'm the Magma Charta and petition of
right il protected the people against the
rapaeity of the monarch. In the four
teenth amendment it protects the indivi-
dual from the rapacitY of the multitude.
And this tribunal occupies the grandest
position ever held oy any human tribunal
for the protection of the individual right
OF every citizen to his life, liberty and
property. And life is so dear and liberty
is so sweet and property is SO sacred that
the mantle of protection of this amend
ment should always be extended by this
court whenever it has been violated by any
State.
"There is growing disregard for the
individual right of property, and it is to
this court that we must look for protec-
ton against every assault. The Wright
act in effect takes the property of A and
gives it to B without consent or conpensa-
ton. The whole portion of the bonded
debt of Modesto district, paid by the city
of Modesto, is in effect transferred from
the city to the outlying agricultural lands.
This is just what Judge Miller in Davidson
VS.. New Orleans said should not be done
But it is done whenever you assess lands
not benefited to provide irrigation for
owners who desire it. Under the Wright
act all lands susceptible of irrigation
may be assessed. Susceptible is a broad
word including everything, especially
when construed, as it has been, to mean
susceptible in its natural state. 1t means
capable of receiving of, of being affected
by, as my distinguished adversary will no
doubt concede, as all men are susceptible
of love. And when the act is further con-
strued to include all lands even indirectly
benefited, although incapable of irriga-
ton, as brick buildings, the acme of con-
fiscation is reached. Assessment by value
in irrigation districts levies heaviest charge
upon the property least benefited.
81 appeal for authority to my learned
adversary, Judge Dillon. l appeal from
Philip drunk to Philip sober-from Judge
Dillon, indamed with fumes of advocacy,
to Judge Dillon in his quiet study, writing
law treatises. In his great work he says
lands directly and largely benefited cannot
be included with those only indirectly and
slightly benefited where the assessments
are not proportionate to the benefits.
Again, water provided under the Wright
act does not go to land. 1t goes to certain
individuals. who may either use it or sell
use in this. 1t simply provides a
commodity, for sale or exchange. 1t is
for irrigation of class of persons, not of
the lands; and of this We have grand ex-
ample in the deluge, when the Almighty
determined that the irrigation of mankind
was necessary for their salvation. Here
the question of necessity was determined,
but under the Wright act it never has
been. The Legislature does not determine
it, nor does any one except the petitioners
for the district, who may select its boun-
diaries at will, thus choosing the electors
who must vote, and then pile up bonds
without limit.
THE Supreme Court of California has
said in the Glendora case that the princi.
pal purpose of the act seems to be to pro-
vide plentiful supply of bonds, water
supply being chiefly incidental. All bonds
which have been issued under this act