The herald., 1896-01-25
HARRISON ARGUES A CASE
And Thousands Gather to Listen
to Him
IRRIGATION IN / LITIGATION
All California Is Interested in the
Decision
2IGATION IN LITIGATION
The Ex-Presdent Appears to Uphold the
ConstitutonaIitv of the Wright
Irrigation Law

the capltOl tOuay. Iue ueWS 'hde SA-
President Harrison would appear in the
California irrigation case drew thousands
through the mud and rain to the capitol
and for two hours before noon the halls
were thronged and the doors besieged.
Owing to the limited space in the old sem
ate chamber, where the supreme court sits,
few persons gained admission. In the
courtroom were some OF the most promi-
nent men in the country, including Joseph
Choate. General Harrison took a seat at
table Immediately in front of the chief
Justice and became the target of all eyes.
1t was his first public appearance in WASH
ington since he left the white house three
years ago. His appearance had changed
but slightly. The careworn look had dis
appeared, and time had seemingly dealt
kindly with him. He consulted notes
freely. while ex Chief Justice Rhodes, who
preceded him, was speaking. There was
great array of legal talent on both sides OF
the case.
Mr.. Harrison appeared as special coun-
sci in the case in favor of sustaining the
consttutionality of the Wright act. repre-
senting interested bond holders. The reg
ular counsel in favor of sustaining the law
were Judge Rhodes, r. p. Wright of Cali
fornia, and j. f. Dillon of New York. and
against the law Joseph Choate of New
York. r.. Fl. Bond and George II. Maxwell
of California.
Mr.. Harrison entered upon his arg ument
as soon as Mr.. Rhodes had finished. He
stood at the table with his coat thrown back
and hands plunged at times in his pockets,
and at others resting akimbo on his hips or
pushed out on the desk in front of him. he
spoke with an earnestness and air of what
might be almost termed pugnacity that is
nj bar rna n re OF Of a ay. C
voice seemed weak as he began but it be-
came clear and firm as he proceeded. In
opening, he wasted no time, but went to
the heart of the contention at once.
In battle, he said. after the woods had
been shelled and the lines of the enemy
located, The issue was fought out in very
narrow compass. The details of the case
had been exhaustively placed before the
court, he said, and he would therefore con-
fine himself 10 what he regarded the vital
Issue The taking power of the state. That
power he regarded as full. 1t was proper
that the state should undertake to control
the water supplies in the interest OF it's peo-
pie, and to distribute through Its delegated
veorescnta tiyes-boa,da of directors incor-
porated under its laws. ..I
Mr.. Harrison called attention to the vast
ilte rests hinging on the decision in this
case, as number of other states with irri-
CATION districts had followed the suit of
California and had passed laws almost
identical with the Wright act.
Several times while the eX-presid9nt was
laying down proposition or citing case,
Mr.. Choate, who sat at his right. shook his
head in protest.
Ex-President Harrison said he thought
there were few general principles and a
few subordinate cases growing out of de-
cisions of the supreme court which were
applicable to the present case. These he
regarded as tax cases. The power exer-
cised in both cases was the same. 1t was
the power of taxing portion of the prop
erty of u citizen for the Use of the stale. If
anything was clear. made clear by reason,
by decisions of this court, it was that the
taxing power of the state was full one. Il
found its only Limitation in the statement
of the constitution of the United States.
The power of a state to levy general
tax ard provide for the levy of a specific
tax was iull and could not be challenged.
In the matter of this special assortment it
had always been recognized that its abso-
lutte equity had been admitted. He re-
ferred o steps taken 10 see what could be
done with the arid lands. and said those
lands were valueless without water. Un-
der the ordinary land laws of the United
States, how, he asked, could we ever have
brought out their fertility? There must be
some combination.
EITHER the power of the state or the
government must interfere, or the United
States, through its public officers, must
consent to put vast tracts of these lands
into the hands of individuals. 1t is simply
a question as to whether this is to be in the
hands of a private corporation or of the
public. There is no other way TO make the
iandholder independent. He is otherwise
a serf, should the water supply be in the
hands of private corporation. A certain
portion of the stock should be made ap-
purtenaut to the land to be irrigated, so
every landowner becomes stockholder in
the irrigation company. The people who
own the land choose q board of directors
and have the management and control of
the whole. They are freed by this partici-
patton from the threat or apprehension of
the control by those who have no interest
nearly ten years ago and has been con-
stantly exercised ever since and copied by
other states"
He regarded as sufficient notice to all
partiesl the presentation of the petition
and the fixing of a day upon which it would
be heard by the board of supervisors. That
gave them ample time toomake protests.
He referred to number of decisions of
courts where such notice had been decided
to have been adequate. In concluding his
remarks, lhe ex-president said it rested
with the legislature. unless restricted by a
constitutional provision, to determine in
what manner the funds should be raised
when public work was to be organized.
Counsel on the other side contended that
the Wright act took property without due
process of law because, as this court had
said in the case of the Missouri Pacific
railway VS.. Hume, it was not within the
legitimate scope of legislative power. 1t
was settled principle of law, they con-
tended, and was the law of the United
States, that the right to compensation,
whenever private property was taken for
public use, was an incident to the power
and inseparably connected with it. Any
attempt of any legislature to levy assess
ments on properly not compensated by
special benefits, or in excess of such bene-
fits, or not proportionate to them, for the
purpose of construction of local public
improvement for the general public well
fare was, therefore, in excess of legislative
power and violation of the fourteenth
amendment.
1t had been argued, as reason why the
Wright act should be sustained. that it had
been re-enacted in other states. But the
radical changes from the Wright
act which had been made in the
statutes referred to, which were framed
in the light of experience with the practical
ODeratiOns of tho WRIGHT not ctrnDuJv ann.