Arizona republican., 1896-11-17
MATER FOR PUBLIC USE USE.
The Wright Irrigation Law De-
 cIared Constitutional.
The United States Supreme Court Renders a Decision Which Af- fects the Irrigation Interests of the Arid Region.

WASHINGTON, Nov 16. = The United States supreme court today ren- dered an opinion sustaining the consti- tutionality of the Wright law of Cali fornia and overruling the decision of the United States circuit court for the California district which was against the laws validity.
 There were two cases before the su- preme court involving the constitu- tionality of the Wright law, permitting California to be divided into irrigation
 districts and property in the districts taken for the construction of irriga- tion works One of these involved the Fallbrook irrigation district and the other Modesto districts. The same
 points were raised in both, but the
 Fallbrook case was appealed from the 1 decision of the federal circuit court, | while the Modesto case was brought Up from the California state supreme court.
 One of the principal objections made
 to the law was that the water taken
 under it was not for public use. The
 court in it's decision on this point, said:
 ''To provide for the irrigation of lands
 in states where there is no color of
 necessity 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 necessary for the purpose of
 rendering the ordinary cultivation of the land remunerative, might be re-
 garded 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 interested in
 the scheme On the other hand, in a
 state like California, where the arid area confessedly embraces millions of
 acres, an act providing for their irriga-
 tion might be we'll regarded as an act devoting water to public use, and there
 fore as valid exercise of the legisla-
 tive power.
 "The people of California and the members of her legislative body must, in the nature of things, be more fa-
 smiliar with the facts and circum-
 stances which surround the subject , and with the necessities and occasion < for the irrigation of lands than can any one who is stranger to her soil. , This knowledge and familiarity must have their due weight with the state
 courts which are to pass upon ques I tion of public use, in the light of facts I which surround the subject in their , own state For these reasons, while
 not regarding the matter as concluded f by these various declarations or decis- ions of the people and legislature and : courts of California, we yet in consid- h ering the subject accord to and treat them with very great respect and we V regard the decisions as emhodying the
 deliberate judgment ard matured l. thought of the courts of that state on if this subject.
 2 Viewing the subject for ourselves h and in the light of these considera- fl tions, we have very little difficulty in l. coming to the same conclusion as " reached by the courts of California. . The use must be regarded as a public l. use or else it would seem to follow that V no general scheme of circulation can 'c be formed or carried into effect"
 SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 16.-Much ,e local interest is felt in the decision of 10 the United States supreme court in the q irrigation bonds case, for on it the de- n, velopment of the state greatly depends n About $8,000,000 of irrigation bonds are r. held in this vicinity and in Europe 10 Local banks and capitalists have ad- IF vanced much money upon the bonds as 10 collected al securities o,.id Iue tio cia.on V that they are valid means the immedi- ,s ate establishment of a strong market If value for them, the issuance of more 10 bonds and the opening up of vast areas 10 of rich farming lands, which when ,e completed, with the advantage in
 wheat, will make the state more pros a porous than ever. A decree of the ,s supreme court confirming Judge Ross at decision that the bonds were invalid a would have meant the loss of money g invested in them and loaned upo1 d them, and the reality of the importan n- work of irrigation for time