Show WRIGHT irrigation ACT CHOATES ARGUE AGAINST IT law that takes ones Pro property piert without his 1113 consent find and bestons bestows it upon another washington jan 17 ra in presenting his big argument la in tho the irrigation case before tho the supreme court COMM mr choate held that tho the wright act does nothing more or leps jose than to a take the property of one citizen and without his consent bestow lt it upon another and ana we ma maintain lotain he ha ald said that this cannot be done under the fourteenth amend ment which guarantees to every one due process of oc law before this property thill bo be taken from hinl him As was said eald by judge henderson of 0 california lit la the th case cao of oc dentzel vs ho he continued statutes which operate to divest d vested rights or in other words which take tho the property of one aitt citizen zon and without or his consent bestow it upon mother another aro are a opposed to its tural right and subversive of 0 any government founded upon llred laws lawa the individual right ot of property properly was in these days daya being invaded by the states blates in many ways there tharo was n as 9 very extreme of sentiment now dow prevailing differing cUn erlos front the old it and d well founded idea that every bevc ry nuns man I 1 property Is IB his own to use UBO us aa ho he pica led provided only he does not interfere nath his neighbors and now it lit Is held that property Is a a crime tile apostles of this doctrine preach it averytt here and they are a numerous sect the wright act he be said ul ves to the community in which the landowner land on owner ner resides the power to encumber his property at will mill and to an unlimited amount tor for a purpose from which he may receive no benefit and when nhen tho the burdens which axe arc imposed on him are arc riot not equally shared by those who may creato create the obligations obligation the closing argument upholding tho the wright act was mado made by judge dillon he contended that there would be but two ways ot of irrigation one by tho the state government the other by private corporations or individuals it if irrigation were attempted by individuals or corporations it would bo be successful only it if they possessed the powers of eminent domain this could not be granted to a a corporation if as has haj been asserted the project was not for a public purpose it if the land and water were separated in howlier ship those owning the lands would bo be dependent on tho the water owners which judge wright thawed showed would lead to undesirable de results under the provisions of 0 tile wright act the ownership of 01 the water Is 1 by the agency of tho the state regulated by the public and the use of the water becomes practically free when the bonds are arc paid up tho the I 1 only way of supplying irrigation was directly by the state or by the state through corporations as pro provided v aided in the act ile he further argued that committing the question of the erection of the works and this administration of the irrigation to the action of the people in the various localities Is in in line clearly with the usage of self government |