Show IRRIGATION LAW VALID I Supreme Court So Declares in the I California Case THE 3IOBESTO APFEIAL CASE WAS DIS31ISSED A Judgment by the Highest Tribunal Trib-unal Which In of Great Importance Import-ance Points Upon Which the Learned Justices Differed Opinions Opin-ions Handed Down b y PecUham and Brewer Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Field Dissent Washington Nov 16After litigation litiga-tion extending over a period o five or six years the CaKfccnia statute locally lo-cally kncwn as the Wnigfat irrigation law has been pronounced to be cost = co-st t1 onall and valid by the supreme court cf the UnQted States and the validity of 16000000 of bonds issued thereunder affirmed The decision was announced in the supreme court today by justice Peckham in the case of I the Fall Brook Irrigation District cal a vs Maria King Bra and husband hus-band appEilDns from the circuit court of the southern district of California There was another appeal before ths court also involving the same lanv disposed of a itodays session of the supreme court which came from the supreme count o the state William Tregea vs the Modesto Irrigation District Dis-trict The courts below entered diametrically dia-metrically opposlte judgmtrrrs the cir metrcly oPPs jUds IIS cr cuit court hong chat the law was unconstitutional aad the supreme of the stale holding that it was constitutional consti-tutional The Tregea case had been before the supreme court of 4he United States for more tan two years and after hhving been argued once was aslgo fcr another argument in connection con-nection with the Fall Brook case The argent took place lost April ex President Harrison supporting the law The complainants in the two eases attacked the law on the ground that it was unconstitutional violating both the state and federal condrtu lions the latter in effect that i took away private vate properly without due process of law Judge McKenna of the cIrcuit court decided that the aot did practically prac-tically take the property of the Brad leys who are alien rs dins of a Diego county without due process of law and granting the injunction asked forIn the opening disposing of the case Justice Peckiiam refers to the vast extent ex-tent o the arid region and J e great importance to those residing in ic of i the scheme to improve it condltfon I by irrigation Taking the caiuorma law as a model he said that seven or eighlc other state in tSiearad bflTEad passed similar laws to assess lards l I I for tlhe cost of constructing irrigating I I orks and condesmntos other lands for the right of way of these works proceedings ceedings under Uiich were awa1tins the result of the pending ionOne ion-One of the points adopted by counsel was that the irrigation of aiCd lands was not a public purpose and this was discussed in the opinion at length in cnn D1 witJh the power c T the legislature to pass a law providing for the accomplishment of that purpose The supreme curt found no dUIieulty Justice Peckham sal in con I the same conclusion reacSied by the California court that the irrigation I of arid Lands is a public purpose when j I the water thus uced Is pu to public I use and that anact providing for irrigation ir-rigation is a valCd exercise o the iegIs la > tivc power A second objection urged by the property owners was that the operations opera-tions to the act need not be and are I not limited to arid unproductive lands I but include within its possibilities all lands no matter how fertile or productive pro-ductive so long as they are susceptible j in their natural state to one modQ of irrigation from a common source the special point being that it was unlawful un-lawful to include the city of Modesto in an irrigation district But the supreme su-preme court of California said it was undoubtedly intended by the legislature legis-lature that cities and towns in proper cases should be included in such districts dis-tricts and that the act thus construed did not violate the state constitution consttuton and that view of the law the supreme court of the United States adopted i As to the construction of the act constructon upon the third point raised the supreme I su-preme court of the United States held I that it provided for a hearing of the I land owner both as to the question whether his land would be benefited II by the proposed irrigation and when I that had been decided in favor of the I benefit then upon the question of valu I ation and assessment of and upon his i land included in the district As to other matters the district could be created without notice 1 any one Our conclusion is that the act as construed with reference to the objections objec-tions considered under this third head is unassailable The fourth and final objection was as to the basis of assessment upon the lands benefited that it amounted to a taking of the property of the citizen without due process of law Regarding this the opinion says The method of assessments here urovided for are about the best which could have been adopted in order to accomplish the most equal and exact justice which the nature of the case permits But none the less we are unable to say that it runs counter to any provision of the federal constitution and we must for that reason hold the objection here considered con-sidered to be untenable The judgment of the circuit court was therefore overruled and the case remanded for further proceeding not inconsistent with the opinion of the supreme su-preme court of the United States Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Field it was announced wa dissented from the opinion of the court The decision of the court in the case from the Modesto district which came from the supreme court of the state j was announced by Justice Brewer The 0 c constitutionality of the law he said had been settled by the decision in the Fall Brook case and the Modesto case was disposed of briefly on the ground that it held no questions the supreme court of the United States to decide The proceedings from which Tregea appealed simply gave the directors of g the irrigation system authority to issue bonds As no bonds were issued said Justice Jus-tice Brewer and the proceeding does not compel the issue of any and they may not be issued at all no such suit is presented as calls for consideration and decision by this court For this reason the appeal will be dismissed Justices Harlan Gray and Brown however he continued are of the opinion that as the Judgment of the state court was against a right and privilege specially set up and claimed by the plaintiff in error under the constitution con-stitution of the United States such judgment if modified or revised will include him if not all the holders of taxable property in the Modesto irrigation irri-gation district in respect of the federal right and privilege so alleged consequently conse-quently i is the duty of this court to determine upon its merits the federal question so raised by the pleadings and determined by the judgment of the state court They arealso of the opinion opin-ion that the principles announced in the Fall Brook case sustain the conclusions conclu-sions of the state court upon this federal fed-eral question and require the affirmance of its judgment |