Imperial Valley press., 1912-11-30

of the supreme court of the United
States in that your honors conclui lie
that the character of the use is deter
mined by whether it extends to or is
used by the public, whereas the su-
preme court of the United States holds
that it depends upon whether or not
the use is one of public interest and
general welfare For the same reasons
the same supreme court holds valid
state laws declaring mining a public
use in the mining states.
Section 1 article XIV of the consti-
tuition provides: The use of all water
appropriated for sale, rental or distri-
button is hereby declared to be a pub
lie use and the subject to regulation
and control of the state in the mann er
to be prescribed by law
Section provides the right to col
lect compensation for the use
of water supplied to any county
or the inhabitants thereof is a fran
chise and cannot be exercised except
prescribed by law
I'VE have the plain recognition -
this court of the fact that the consti-
tuition of 1879 did change the existing
law and that the object of the change
was to rid the state of existing mo-
nopolies of water for irrigation and
other purposes.
with this condition of monopoly the
constitution deals. and the only mo-
nopoly which did exist and which was
not at that time within reach of the
law was the monopoly caused by the
owners of so-called private water
rights who claimed the right to select
their customers and sell to whom they
wished and refuse others and were
asserting their right to require all per.
sons desiring water to bid against
each other and thus secure the hign-
est price possible for the water sup
ply thus monopolized. No other mo-
nopoly existed at which the makers of
the constitution could intend to strike
blow. Those corporations which by
their charters were plainly public ser
vice corporations were already subject
10 regulation by law.
This court in its decision herein h D.;
construed the constitutional provision
to refer only to such water as is aD-
propriated for sale, rental and distri-
button to the public and that water
which is not appropriated for sale 10
the public is not public use. When
the present constitutional provision
was reported TO the convention in 1879
the following proceedings took place.
Mr.. Waters: 1 offer an amendment
after word distribution the words 10
the public
"Thereupon Mr.. Waters made a vio-
lent attack upon the constitutional
provision but after an extended debate
in which it is very apparent that the
dominant party in the convention de-
sired that the constitutional provision
oe so enacted as to bring any and ali
sale of waters under the control OF the
public and in which Mr.. Waters ad
mitted that such was its effect and for
that reason assailed and sought to
amend it, Mr.. Waters amendment was
lost. Yet Mr. Waters amendment is
the identical amendment which the
court by its decision herein has adde,
to this constitutional provision. This
stone which the builders rejected has
become the head of the corner The
corner of the water supply.
1T is shown by transcript, folio 226,
that it was the plan of the company
10 create more mutual companies ad
libitum and extend the system gener-
ais over the entire area of Imperial
valley to the extent of its supply. The
California Development company did
then hold itself out as intending to fur
nish water for all of this land and
the only thing which is claimed to pre-
vent the public use attaching is the
attempt of the company to claim and
insist upon saying to whom and for
what price and upon what terms the
water should be delivered. This is the
case then presented. If a corporation
having in other respects the earmarks
of a public service corporation having
by its charter the power of a public
service corporation and having the
physical power and the natural and
artificial facilities for supplying the
rublic and engaged in supplying is
commodity to a large portion of the
public service by showing that it has
always denied it and that it has always
claimed the right to say who it will
serve and for what price and upon
what terms then it certainly follows
that the act of 1885 is only binding on
those who plead guilty and stand up
for sentence. 1t must be apparent that
every corporation engaged in furnish
ing water, gas or electricity for hire