The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1896-11-21
THE LAW SUSTAINED.
United States Supreme Court Decides
Every Point.
WRIGHT IRRIGATION LAW.
Judge Ross Reversed California Courts
Upheld -IdahO's District Irrigation
Law Is All RIght-Eyery Con.
tentiOn Of the Opponents Of
the Law Is Set Aside.

Washington, Nov. 16-The United
States supreme court has rendered an
opinion sustaining the CONSTITUTIONAL
ity of the Wright irrigation law of Cal
ifornia, and oyerruling the decision of
the United States circuit court Of the
California district, which was against
the laws validity.
One of the principal objections made
to the law was that water taken under
1t was not for public use. The.court
in its decision gives this objection the
first place in the consideration. ~
Judge Peckham delivered the courts
decision today, from which the follow
ing extracts are taken: ~
ITO provide for the irrigation of
lands in states where there is no color
or necessity therefor, within any fair
meaning of the term, and simply for
the purpose of gratifying 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 land remun-
eratiVe, might be regarded by the courts
as an improper exercise of the legisla.
tive will, and the use might not be held
TO be public inanyconstitutional sense,
no matter how many owners were in
terested in the scheme. On the other
hand a state like California, which con-
fessedly embraces millions of acres, an
act providing for their irrigation might
well be regarded as an act devoting the
water to public use and therefore as
valid exercise Of the legislative power.
"TO irrigate and thus to bring into
possible cultivation these large masses
Of otherwise worthless lands would
seem to be public purpose and mat
ter Of public interest not confined to
the land owners or to even any one sec
ton of the state. The fact that the use
of the water is limited to the land own
er is therefore not fatal objection to
this legislation. 1t is not essential
that the entire community or even any
considerable portion thereof should di-
rectly enjoy or participate in an i'm
provement in order to constitute a
public use. All land owners in the dis.
trict have a right to proportionate
share of the water and no one land
owner is favored over his fellow in the
right of the use of the water. 1t is
necessary in order that the use should
be public that every resident in the dis
trict should have the right to the use
of the water
Referring to the objections that I'M
der the act the irrigation of lands
should, not be limited to those which
are in fact unproductive, the opinion
says: "The legislature by this act has
not itself named any irrigation districts
and of course, has not decided. as to the
nature and quality of any specific lands
which have been included in any dis
trict. 1t has given'a general statement
as to what condition must exist in or
der to permit the inclusion of any land
within the district, The land which
can properly be so included is, as we
think, sufficiently limited In its charac-
ter by the provisions of the act 1t
must be susceptible of one mode of IT.
rigatfon, from common source and by
the same system of works, and 1t must
| he of such a character that It will be
benefited by irrigation Blythe system
to be- adopted. This as we think,
means that the amount of benefit must
be substantial and not limited to the
/ creation of an opportunity to thereat-
:ter use land for new kind OF crop
/ willie enthusiastically benefting It for
the cultivation of the old, kind, which
n had produced in reasonable quanti'
Ties and with ordinary certainty, and
success without the aid Of artificial ir.
l.v,gation.. The question whether any
| particular land would thus be benefited
mustebe necessarily one of fact.
Replying to other criticisms of the
act one of which was, it takes property
without due process Of law, the opinion
saws: .Although there is marked dis
tinction between an assessment for a
IIocal Improvement and the leVysot
1-..oI tov vet the former is still the
EXERCISE Of the same power as the lat
ter. both having their source In the
sovereign power of taxation. What
ever objections may be urged to TIL;
Kind of an assessment as being In. VIC