The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-12-18
BI-PrGSidGlt Appears in an I'm
p0rtalt Case.
OF INTEREST IN CALIFORNIA
Irrigation Matters in Semi-arid Re-
gions Of United 5tates-Rights
of an lien.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16.-The Uni
dered an opinion sustaining the con-
stftutionaIity of the Wright Irrigation
law of California and overruIing the
decision OF the United States Circuit
Court for the California district which
decided against the laws validity.
i he case in which the opinion was rem
dered was that OF the Fallbrook Irrl-
CATION Company VS.. Maria King Brad
ley.
1t has attracted widespread interest
throughout the Rocky Mountain and
Pacific Coast regions because of its
importance to the material interests
of the entire arid belt, and in the Cen
trail West and East The suit gained
prominence through the fact that ex-
President Benjamin Harrison was of
counsel who argued the case before
the Supreme Court, whose decision has
been awaited for months, having been
pending for considerable part OF the
preceding term of court.
Justice Peckham delivered the courts
decision today. He departed from the
custom of the Justices in that he did
not read the opinion on which the
court based it's conclusion, but simply
announced that it had decided to up
hold the law.
There were two cases before the
Supreme Court involving the constitu-
tionality of the Wright law permitting
California to be divided into irrigation
districts taxed for the construction of
irrigation works. One of these involv-
ed the Fallbrook Irrigation district
and the other the Modesto district.
hot =,
but the Fallbrook case was appealed
from the decision of the Federal Cir
cult Court, while the Modesto case was
brought up from 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.
Today's decision will apply to both
suits.
The Importance of the decision is
not confined to the State of California,
but affects the irrigation interests of
the entire semi-arid region, many
States of which have adopted the law.
The case also involved the broad con-
stitutionaI question of the right of tax
alton and taking private property
without due process of law. Most or
the irrigation districts have made large
decision.
The Fallbrook case was brought be-
fore the Federal courts because Mrs.
Bradley was an alien. Justice Peck
ham. in his written opinion, said the
action was commenced by Mrs. Brad
ley for the purpose of procuring an
injunction restraining the collector for
the irrigation district from giving
deed to the premises belonging to Mrs.
Bradley, based on sale of her land
made by the collector for non-payment
of a certain assessment and for other
relief on the ground that the act in
cooperating the irrigation district was
in violation of the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of
the State of California. One of the
principal objections made to the law
was that water taken under it, was
not for public use.
The court, in it's decisions today,
gives this objection the first place In
its consideration. On this point JUS
tice Peckham 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 rendering the ordinary
cultivation of the land remuneratlve,
might be regarded by the courts as an
improper exercise of the Legislative
will and such use might not be held
to be public in any constitutional sense,
no matter how many owners were IN
terested in the scheme. On the other
hand. in a State like California, which
confessedly embraces millions of acres,
the act providing for their irrigation
might we'll be regarded as an act de-
voting water to public use and, there
fore as a valid exercise of the legis-
lative power"
The people of California and the
members of her legislative body must,
in the nature of things, be more ia
miIiar with the facts and circumstances
which surround the subject and with
the necessities and occasion for irrlga-
ton lands than can anyone who is
stranger to her soil. This knowledge
and familiarity must have their due
weight with State courts which are
TO pass upon the question of public use
in the light of the facts which sur
round the subject in their own State.
For these reasons, while not regarding
the matter as concluded by these var
ions declarations and the acts and de-
cisions of the people and Legislature
and courts of California. we yet IN
considering the subject accord to and
treat them with very great respect ana
we regard the decisions as embodylng
the deliberate judgment and matured
thought of the courts of that State on
this subject Viewing the subject for
ourselves and in the light of these
considerations we have but very little
difficulty in coming to the same con-
cIusion as reached by the courts of
California.
The use must be regarded as pup
lie use or else it would seem to follow
49, NO general scheme of regulation
con he formed or carried into effect.