The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-07-16


irion county. with virtually unanimou,
public sentiment at our back. denounc,
that assertion as false and declare IN,
amendments to be undesirable and unjust
j. II is not necessary to adop, this
amendment in order TO further dcvalop
Nei,lnnate IRRIGATION enterprises. Texas al.
ready has irrigation laws amplv encour-
kagng irrigation and the valleys OF every
flowing stream in the West are dotted with
irrigated farms, by authority of existing
STATE laws, Tho people OF East Texas ora
being systematically deceived on this poin,
by those who claim that the amendmen,
West. ~ '"'
\. The amendment Will work Injustice To
and robbery OF those OF our citizens who
relying on the authority Of existing laws
nave already developed irrigated farms nv
authori2ing a majority of the land owning
neishbors to include them. agains, their
VIII IN an irrigation district bond their
iana Tor constructing new irrigation works
mhich they do not need. and divert the
limited water available to dissipate II over
a larger area, without any suggestion OF
compensation for damage thus done To fhc
| property rights of the minority. This in
! justice Is authorized by the amendment
| though tho Nebraska statute adopted in
lS9o on which 1t is claimed TO be modelled
carefully provides in its very first section
I
constructed before the passage of this act
OF SUFFICIENT capacity TO water the land
| hereunder for which the water taken in
such bitches Is appropriated such bitches
and franchises and the land subject IN he
watered thereby shall be exampt from the
operation OF this law except such district
shall be formed TO make purchase of such
ditches. canals and franchises and that
this law shall not be construed 70 AFFECT
IN any way the rights OF bitches already
constructed. And In section 80 the Ne
praska statute further SAYS: Nothing
herein contained shall be deemed TO au-
thorize any person or persons to divert the
waters OF any river. creek, stream. canal or
ditch from It's channel 10 the detriment of
any person or persons having any interest
III such river, creek, stream. canal or ditch
or the waters therein. unless previous com
pehsation be ascortalned and paid there
for"
But in the Texas amendment not a sug-
Sestion is to be found that any citizen of
me west mas any property rights to either
land or water in proposed irrigation dis
trict which may not be damaged ayajns,
ms VIII either by bonding his land with a
aebt OF Sl5 per acre or by diverting the
wafer for the uses of others simply on a
majority vote. And the voters of East Texas
are asked TO adopt this amendment into
their constitution for the benefit of the
a
lsiature such law would be unconstitu-
tlonai. But If the people themselves vote
~ INTO their constitution the boomers and
professional promoters can demoralize and
destroy property rights in the West.
D. 1t should be defeated because ii Will
permit Spectator or promoter TO colnnize
handini of land owning voters on half
acre tracts Of land and thereby carry dis
trlct elections and issue bonds to rest as
lien on the land of the minority. The Ne
Dfaska law guards against this rank In
justice by providing tsection %: neti-
tioh snail be filed with the board of county
commissioners signed by majority of the
resident freeholders who are qualified cleo
lors OF the proposed district who shall also
own majority of the whole number of
acres belonging to the resident electors of
the proposed district, which petition shall !
set forth and particularly describe the |
boundaries of said district and shall pray |
the, same shall be organized under the pro |
visions of this act.
o. me amendment creates caste of resi- |
dent land owners and disfranchiscs in dis |
trict elections all voters who do not be |
long TO that caste. 1t is class legislation of |
the rankest sort. But II 1t gets into the con |
sltution 1t VIII be because the masses of |
the people of East Texas vote 1t in through |
being Systematically decelved-not be-
cause they are indifferent to their own |
West.
Z. 1t should be defeated because it re-
qnires the State of Texas TO indorse the
bonds of district, not merely as being
issued in accordance with law, hut as being
entitled to all the faith and confidence
now prescribed by law in the case of coun-
ty and city bonds" With this uncalled for
by the State inexperienced in
Vestors can be swindled into buying bonds
Of boom projects which no experienced cap
ltalist would advance a dollar for. Texas
should not guarantee the credit OF any ir-
fisation scheme which has not sufficient
merit to stand alone.
:. The constitution as il stands permits
the fullest development OF any irrigation
enterprise which has merit. and the legis-
ature has from time to time passed laws
hat are now in force under which irriga-
ion Is steadily developing in West Texas.
But neither the constitution nor any
statute law now permits mans land. by
the vote of class, to be bonded with debt
against his will and without compensation,
Either to build dam which he does not
leed, or for any other purpose. So our pres
mt constitution and laws do not suit the
the spectators aud the pro-
noters. That is why they claim to speak
or the farmers OF the West aud want TO
amend the constitution.
.. The amendment specially exempts the
|
my county which has school lands IN the
Vest can have a debt OF sl5 per acre voted
ipon 1t IL any professional dam builder,
cooking for a job. shall claim II as irrigabe.
Then, II the dam is carried away by a food,
n If IL fails to rain for year ar two In
he drOuthy West, so as TO provide storm
water for storing, or II las generally hap
'ens in storage tanks for live stock, when !
coated on dry creek) the water shall leak
nj through gravel he'd the county school
ands viii be sold for taxes to pay the
'onds ,
TO- II the present laws TO encourage ir- ,
igation are not sufficient. why not amend ,
hem or pass new laws? If irrigation dis !
riots are better than present methods why
lot establish them by an act of the legis- :
ature as Nebraska has DONE What pro-
'ision of our constitution stands In the
way? Why should compensation for dam
ges be granted in Nebraska and not "
'exas? If irrigation can be promoted IN