The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-12-14
DRAINAGE LAW AE[1|
VALID BY THE cDJ|
Supreme Judicial Tribunal.
State Renders Opinion
in the Matter.
SAYS THE ACT IS CRuA
However, Landowners, /
Opinion Says Can ReadI
Protect Themselves.
SAYS THE ACT IS CRU

In an opinion handed down by N.
prome court yesterday a(terroo.
1rahaGe la" passed by the last ,s..
'urc Is held TO hc constitutional
was attacked bv 1oh,
berg In n petition for wru ~ -
ton, which hc Glcd aglingt tbe
River irrigation district ana / n
cuc, g. T.. Thurman and + II n
as directors OF that district. and :.
he sought 10 cuJoin the defcp5sr,.
negotiating. selling. or otherwise ~
ing Of certain bonds which wcr, ..,
ized by the qualified voters Of ~.
trirt. "s
The opinion in the case wa, :,
by CHIEF Justice j. T. Frick ana
Csv,y and i. y. S1rauIp. TN.
yersy between the parties Wax soss
to tho suprem" court for determira,I.'
tho application OF Lnndherg and ~,
murrar thertu. "s
Tho decision Is Of extreme im-o,.
TO many irrigation projects. nhIch
been held up ON account ~ H..
over a million dollars i'm applicatis,
loans baYe been made 30 Inc s,aso
board, all OF which. on the recomr,.
ton OF Attorney General NJ.
Barnes, have been awaiting inc ~,
OF the court.
Land Board to Meet.
4 meeting Of the state board =,
commissioners is Ia he held on NJ
her 20 to arrive at dnaI se,ils-
on the contract between the boari
j. W. Hogan Tor work which he 6
the Pluto reservoir project and II 4,
pected that the supreme court ~
on the drainage law viii also COM
for consideration At that time
Before any loans are made. now
the attorney general win he giYen an
portUnity 10 thoroughly satisfy NIL
ON other legal questions involved n
loaniug OF tho states nomcy for Ir<
tlon purposes. The applications M
lile in the office of the board inyol,s
irrigation OF over 100 coo acres of H.
Justice Frick. in his opinion. Il
that the defendant company is fou1<
have obcyed the law I'm tho forrnatI,|
It's organization and in aUthorIyinc.
Issuance OF bonds. The petition for
writ IS denied and the action cuj.
dismissed.
Points Involved.
Tho contentious Of the plainlrf
based on four points. as follows:
/. That chapter as. Laws of II
1909. p. Ia. AS amended by chspltr
Laws OF Utah. 1911. y. 30. vlola,o
provisions of section I Of article of|
constitution OF the state, which pro-.
that no person shall Oe deprived II
liberty ar property without due pi4
Of law"
> That the same chapter conlrarI
section 20 OF article ! of The coDH
tion, which provides that private n
erty shall not be taken or damage
public use without just compcnsauo
2 That the same chapter also uIt
against sections and 5 of artIdt'
be taxed according TO It's value
at uniform and equal rs!c.'
| {, That section Of article : is
lated in that judicial powers are
fcrrcd contrary 10 the provisions d
| section.
In rendering its opinion that no.
the contentious is tcnablc: the ds1
| in part reads as follows:
| The law in some respects Is
and may not be the best that oou-
devised to attain the purposes g
to be accomplished Such defedt
| there arc any. however. must BE- a
died by the legislature and not y
courts. Such defects afford no ~
for holding law invalid. To ayo'a
misconceptions, however, We desr|
state that by what we have ss'n ".
/ tend Ia and do pass upon the o'
tutionality Of the law in question
BY ANYTHING said or omitted itis ~
tended to foveclosc any land owner
seeking redress In the courts Tor anJ
gal injury he may suffer by rsas.
the application of the law in Gucsu''
Has Redress in Courts
III II should develop, therefore 4.
! application of the law that cerlhln
! within u certain irrigation clsiiy'
! not hc irrigated or benefited ny VIZ
! cation system which. is owned by l,s
! lricl and which is CONSTRUCTED uhee,
/ law IN question, the owner ol ue
within tie district In a proper pTps
| ing. timely commences. may no
have the question Determines
whether his lands are being un1us"'I
sessed or burdened 10 maintain va
cation system through which hs
can neither b Irrigated nor hehen'Y
any WAY. MI such questions ,s..' n,s
open for Considera tion and anlus''
when they properly arise
TWO Other Opinions.
The supreme court handed dosh1
other opinions Yesterday. oolh ss1
cases. c, RI. Converse; VINO va" oosr
victed in the Second distrloy evyii egssi
Ogden OF grand larceny for Tue sar,S, s,,
! forty -one ostrich plunes mus. ,hs
sentence imposed upon him o! "s
one year. Converse had been n,;c~ ~
at Murray. whore he was ehhea, ~
sell the plumes. and In his u,1 n
that he had bought the milIIile's ,i srns|
tions from an Assyrian- INC ap'i M
tho supreme court was Dasel ~
ncient evidence. but tho llldgmn.eo' I'M
lower court is affirmed, Penamh Pin hsc5
clsIon OF his case. Converse u,s nas
on bail. In its opinion the s.p,rsrse spmrsrse
stated that the fact that el1on eon1
stolen property IN his posSeSII .nIIt.
was prima facic evidence w W nsrI|
! no; offset by his eXplana,io,,,o - In
Iarly since he was not aole "
Y. Potello. who was cony'soc, l1t eoc,|
wears ago 10 the Firth 1ls''lo,r rsv
horse stealing. was grantee ,aacncc
The court held that tne e.,I.i ibaI
mittcd by Potello a, tllls an ii
had purcna scd the horse from sad
was stronger shan that oil LUG
refutatiop.