Newspaper Page Text
16
STATUS OF IRRIGATION.
The Doctrines of Riparian
Bights Defined.
The Legal History of Water
Rights in California.
Riparian Rights Injurious to Sonth-
em California.
Tin. Vain nan Ux-Hl|( In C«»« Dlmniied
In Kail—Climatic DlfTareneaa Be
ttveen Northern and South
ern California.
Another cause of separation of North
ern and Southern California, growing
out of the great difference in the cli
mates of the respective sections, is that
of irrigatiou. The major portion of the
country north of Tehachepi haa a rainlall
sufficient to supply all the neceeaary
moißture for tbe growing of cereala and
frnitß, which the temperature of tbat
section permita, ac will be shown pres
ently by quotationa from authoritative
publications of tbat region. It 1b not so
in Southern California. Here the all
important and overshadowing question
with every intelligent farm buyer is:
Has the place enough water? Without
water the land is valuable at best only
for pasturage. Here water haa sold at
aB high a price as $750 per inch. And
.here, as in all other arid countries, the
appropriation, Bale and use of water was,
by the original Aryan settlers, regulated
by law. The Mexicans derived their
water laws from Spain, which came
down from the old civil law of the
Romans, who, in turn, undoubtedly
derived their ideas from the Egyptians
and Babylonians. These water laws
were in force in California at the time
of the American occupation in 1846, and
remained in force by virtue of Governor
Riley's proclamation of June '3, 1849,
wherein he eaid: 'The existing laws
of the country must continue in force till
replaced by others made and enacted
by compent power." (Hittel's codes of
California, p. 34.)
Tho constitution of Monterey, ratified
by the people November 13, 1849, sayß
(art. xii, sec. 1): "All laws in force at
the time of tbe adoption of this consti
tution, and not inconsistent therewith,
until altered or repealed by the legisla
ture, shall continne aa if the same had
not been adopted."
This virtually and did actually con
tinue the old Mexican water laws in
force. The first legislature, which met
at San Jose, December 15, 1849, went
fnrtber. Under Spanish and Mexican
rale tbe cities of San Diego, Los Angelee
and Santa Barbara had acquired vested
rights in water, and these rights were
approved and confirmed by thia first
American legislature.
On March, 27, 1850, an act to incor
porate the city of San Diego was passed.
Section 23 reada: "The corporation
created by thia act ahall succeed to all
tbe legal right? and claims of the pre
sidio of San Diego "
On April 4, 1850, an act to incor
porate the city of Lob Angelea was
passed. Section 3 reads: "The corpora
tion created by this act shall eucceed
to all tbe rights, claims and powers of
ttie pneblo de Loa Angelee in regard to
property. . «"
On April 9, 1860, an act to incorporate
the city of Santa Barbara was passed.
Section 4 reads: "The corporation cre
ated by this act shall succeed to all the
rights, powers and claims of the pueblo
de Santa Barbara in regard to prop
erty. . iff
So far so good. To each city thus by
American law was recognized their
vested rights in all water properties
which tbey bad under tbe Mexican laws.
On tbe 13th of April, subsequent to the
enactment of the laws of the pueblo
water rights, tbe entering wedge came
in the passage of an act adopting the
common law. It reads: "The common
law of England, so far is it is not repug
nant to cr inconeietent with the conati
tution of the United Statea, or of the
constitution or laws of the state of Cali
fornia, shall be the rule of decision in
all the courts of the Btate." (Statutes
of California, 1850.)
Says Hamilton: "But the common
law of England, which has been en
grafted on the jurisprudence of the
United States, recognizes and maintains
tho doctrine of riparian rights,' and it
is (in 1886) the law of every state in the
union, with one exception. Divested
of legal verbiagp. thia document virtu
ally means that v riparian owner iB en
titled to receive from the proprietor
above him, aud must transmit to hiß
neighbor below him, the waters of the
stream upon which his land abuts, un
diminished in quantity and unimpaired
in quality.
' fo put it more clearly: Suppose a
man owns laud ou both Bides of a stream,
at its month. Under t.be application of
tbe law of riparian rights he would be
entitled to receive tho entire volume cf
the water in tho stream, undiminished
and unimpaired. It will be seen that
the recognition and enforcement of such
a law is destructive to irrigation. It
virtually ignores the right of appropria
tion, and would prevent all cultiva
tion by the artificial application of
water. Such a law may he entirely in
harmony with existing [physical] con
ditions in Eaglend and the nations of
Northern Europe, where irrigation iB
hardly know n, bnt it is altogether inap
plicable tothe rainless regions cf West
ern America to Southern Europe, and to
a large portion of Asia, Africa and Aus
tralia; yet this is the law recognized by
the court sin every state except Colorado,
and whose absurd provisi-jnß have done
much to retard the development of the
irrigable belt, and caused bo much expen
sive litigation." (Pat Hamilton's Irri
gation, pp. 15,10, cd. 18S6 )
With this clear definition of the
English doctrine of riparian righta by
tiie above (now deceased) author, the
remaining hietory of water lawa and
court decisions in California will be of
the most profound interest.
Aa Hamilton indicates, the common
law of riparian rights may harmonize
with the conditiona in England, where
inigation is hardly known; hot where
irrigation ia neceesary ior the very ex
istence of the farming communities,
eiich a law ia their death, rjaid Juatice
E. M. Ross, in hia diaeenting opinion in
the celehrated case of Lux vs. Haggin
(Od Cal. 413-4):
"The doctrine that the water of a
stream muat continue to How in ita nat
ural course, nndiminiahed in quantity,
Inio heen so far modified in statea with
the climatic conditiona of Massachusetts
aud Illinois aa to permit the diversion
of water for the purposes oi irrigation,
wtuiVu *1,0 miantiltf of £hft is —-»
.. . . — *. » ... v . - < • j ■ i ,3 li;
ceeparily diminished by at least the
quantity absorbed iv the irrigation ol
the land upon which it ie pnt. Espe
cially should this be co in California,
where, in a great part of tbe state, water
is its very life-blood. Every practical
man must know that with the dry
atmosphere and porous soil Of those
sections requiring irrigation, but little,
if any of the water diverted and
used in irrigation is or can be
returned to tbe stream from which
it is taken. To establish, therefore, as
the law of this state, that the water of
a watercourse must flow on in its natu
ral channel, undiminished in quantity,
would, in effect, be to convert the fertile
fields, gardens, orchards and vineyards
in many and great sections of tbe state
into waste and desert places. Such a
rnle is inapplicable to the condition of
things existing here. The common law
is supposed and has been said to be
the perfection of human reason, but <t
would be the very reverse of this to
bold tbat the waters of tbe streams of
California must continue to flow in
their natural channel until they sink
into the sand or waste themselves in
the sea, while orchards, vineyards and
growing crops of immense, if not in
calculable value perish from thirst. In
tbe case of People vs. Canal Appraisers,
33 N. Y. 482, the court of appeals of
New York quoted with approval the
language of Judge fironeon: "I think
no doctrine better settled than that
such portions of the law of England aB
are not adapted to our conditition form
no part of the law of this state. This
exception includes not only such laws
as are inconsistent with tbe spirit of our
own institutions, but such as were
framed with special reference to tbe
physical condition of a country differ
ing widely from onr own. It ie con
trary to tbe spirit of tbe common law
itself to apply a rnle founded upon a par
ticular reason to a law when that reason
utterly fails; ceseante ratione legis,
cessat ipsa lex."
In other words, there being no reason
on account of the physical condition of
California for the application of the
rule of riparian rights as laid down in
the English common law, tbat portion
of that law utterly fails in this country,
and tbe contrary doctrine of appropria
tion prevails, or should do bo, Thia
is agreeable to tbe laws and court de
cisions of the English colonies them
selves in Australia and India.
But the strange and prevailing opinion
in the Lux-Haggin caae aaid, in refer
ence to the act of 1850:
The act of 1850 adopts the common
law of England ; not the civil, nor tbe
jua commune antiquum, or Roman "law
oi nature" oi some oi the civil law com
mentators (Braly ye. Reese, 51 Cal. 564,
note); nor the Mexican law; nor any
hybrid system. And the expression
"common law oi England designates
the English common law aB interpreted
aa well in the Eagliah couite as in the
courts of such of the states of the union
as have adopted the English com
mon law. We cannot presume that
the members of the legislature, even
at that day, were utterly ignorant
of the climate and soil of the country in
which they lived ; and these included in
their number many natives of California,
who must be presumed to have repre
sented tbe intelligence of a race which
for several generations had been familiar
with the natural conditions here exist
ing. The report of the proceedings of
the legislature shows that there was a
considerable minority in favor of the
adoption of tbe civil law, and there are
circumstances appearing from tbe pro
ceedings tending to prove that the ad
vantages of each eystem as the funda
mental law of the future were discussed
and fully coneidered. Under these cir -
cumstances we must, believe that if it
had been intended to exclude tho com
mon law aB to the riparian right, the
intention would have been expressed.
(69 Cal,, 384.)
Which Bhows that the "learned
judge" who wrote the prevailing opin
ion waa not learned in the history of hia
own atate. What are tbe facte? In
1846, at the time of the American occu
pation, California had a total population
of about 26,000. In 1850, when thia law
was adopted, it had a population of 9C,
--000. Thia great and sudden increase
resulted from an ingresa of people who
came to mine, not to farm. Tbey came
from a moist to an arid region, and
while in the language of tbe supreme
conrt "we cannot presume tbat tbe
members of the legislature, even at that
day, were utterly ignorant of the climate
and soil of tbe country in which tbey
had lived" only a few months, as re
gards tbe relation of tbat climate and
aoil to farming in the arid country in
which tbey were living, and of the nec
essary art of irrigation.
The facta are that it wae many years
before tbe agricultural resources of
California were understood by the
American immigrants, aud a much
longer period before they took tbe hint
from their Mexican predecessors that
irrigation was not only a benefit, but
also a necessity. And these facte are
known to all.
The "many natives of California" in
the legislature of 1850, the first, were
jo.Bt two, namely, M. G. Vallejo and
f. de la Guerra, neither of whom
could talk any English, and what little
law of any kind that they knew, if they
knew any, waa that of the civil law.
What alarm should these two ''natives
of California" in the firet legislature
havo over riparian rights of the English
common law, when the subject of ripar
ian rights was never even discussed,
and they caw their fellow-members con
firm the old pueblos in all their old
water rights?
Paechal's rule of legal interpretation,
that laws should be construed according
to their contemporaneous history, may \
here be sell applied.
In the first message of tbe first gov
ernor to the first legislatureon December
21, 1849, Governor Peter H. Burnett
said:
"1 recommend the adoption of the fol
lowing codes:
1. . . . contained in tbe common
law of England. (Ist Cal. leg., p 590.}"
A petition of 18 out of 100 lawyers in
San Francisco, presented to tbat legisla
ture praying tbe adoption of the civil
law, was referred to the judiciary com
mittee, whicli reported on February 27,
1850. The report is to be found on pages
460-480 of the journals of the California
legislature, first session, 1850, and was
written by Burnett, Eaq. It clearly aeta
forth the differencea between the com
mon and tho civil law, and the reasons
wby the common law ahould prevail in
California, but not one reference is made
therein to riparian righta. Thequeation
might be aaked with propriety, if ripa
rian rights was tbe eeaential and central
idea iv the adoption of the Engliah
common law for California, why waa it
never mentioned in the legislative
debates? The answer ia tbat on a
presumption it never entered their
thoughts.
Judge Burnett Bays in his report:
"But bsfore entering upon the subject
in detail, we would premise tbat no one
for a moment entertains the idea of
establishing in California the wholo
body of either the common or the civil
law. There are iv each principles and
doctrines, civil and criminal, which are
repugnant Ut Aasencau feelinga und in
LOS ANGELES HERALD: TUESDAY MORNING. OCTOBER 10. 1893.
conaiatent with American inatltutiona.
Neither one nor tbe other haß been, or
ever can be, unqualifiedly adopted by
any one of tbe United Statea. . . . •
The constitution of the United States
awept away at once the entire political
organization as well of the common as
of the civil law The statute
law of each atate eradicatea many harßh
doctrlnea and aboliebea many apprehen
eive and tyrannical provisions. . > •
"The question naturally presents it
self here: What ia the common law 7
What is the civil law ? And what the
dietinction between them? . • •
"The common law ia that system of
jurisprudence whicb, deducing its ori
gin from tbe traditionary cußtoms and
laws of the Normane, enriched with the
moet valuable portions of the civil law,
modified and enlarged by the numerous
acts of the English parliament. . . •
and has come down fo na, amended
and improved by the American legisla
ture, and adapted to the republican
principles and energetic character of
the American people. . . • The
comman law foaters and encourages ag
riculture. . . .
"Your committee therefore recom
menda . . . tbat in caaea not fall
ing within the conatitution of the
United States, or tbe constitution or
statutes of this state, the courts ehall
be governed in their adjudications by
the Engliah common law, aa received
and modified in tbe United Statea; in
other words, by tbe American common
law."
Tbe report wae adopted, and the bill
became a law. The words of Judge
Burnett will appear with great weight
when the Lux-llaggin decision will be
reviewed. The truth ie that tbe mem
bers of the first California legislature,
neither when tbey confirmed tbe old
Mexican pueblos in their water rights
or adopted the "American" common
law, bad any idea of tbe great contest
tbat would subsequently arise, if in
deed tbey then thought of riparian
rights at alt.
This is clear from the fact that nearly
30 years elapsed before there was any
special legislation at all, and, though
the courts were frequently called upon
to decide water suits, it was 34 years be
fore tbe riparian issue arose.
The act of April 13, 1854, declared
that "the act of April 4, 1860, [incorpor
ating Loa Angelea city! ehall be con
strued to vest and to have veated in tbe
mayor and common council of tbe aaid
city the same power and control over
the distribution of water for the pur
poses of irrigation or otherwise among
tbe vineyards, planting grounds and
lands within the limits claimed
by tbe ancient pueblo Ttown] and
ayuntamiento [city council] of Loa
Angelea, by the mayor end common
council aa the ejidoa or commons of said
city, the poaaeaaion whereof is hereby
declared to be in tbe said mayor
and common council." (Cal. Stat. '54,
p. 63.)
It ia difficult to conceive oi language
more clearly framed than tbe above n
declare tbat the Mexican pueblo of Loa
Angelea did have vested rights in th?
I waters of the Loa Angelea river, and
i that the American city of Loa Angelea
succeeded to all t hoae ancient and veated
rights.
And yet in the face of this unrepealed
law the supreme court in 1884 waa
pleased to cay:
"The in habitants of the former pueblo
of Loa Angelea, who were naing water
when the territory waa traneferred to
the United States, had not acquired a
vested right to any particular quantity
of water." (90 Cal., p. 320.)
Prior to the adoption of the eodea in
1872 numerous laws had been enacted,
authorizing tbe construction of irrigat
ing canals and tbe creation of irrigating
districts and defining tbe dutiea of their
officers.
The act of April 1, 1872, was "to pro
mote irrigation." This law recognized
water rights, and the right to acquire
such by condemnation, and provided for
the formation of districts.
But that year the codea went into
effect, and section 1422 of the civil code,
the legal "straw" at which the supreme
court in Lux vs. Haggin ao eagerly
grasped, became law, the firat direct
legal recognition, probably, of riparian
righta in California, and that not until
irrigation righta had been recognized,
protected, enforced and promoted in tho
etate for 22 years. It reads:
"1422. The rights ot riparian propri
etors are not affected by tbe provisions
of this title."
It is no longer law, having been "re
pealed, but not affecting rights already
veßted," on March 15, 1887. Whatever
vested rights tbere were then, were so
vested only by the absurd deciaiona of
the courte in face of all prior state legis
lation "to promote irrigation" and
against tho very epirit of the common
law itself. The reason for such a law
in tbe codea waa doubtless because the
personuol of the code commission who
drew up the codes were ontirely North
ern Californian, and who, while learned
in the law, knew little or cared less
of tbe material development of the
Boutbern and arid section of their
state.
Title 8, of division 2, of the civil
code, begins with section 1110 and ends
with the repealed section 1422.
Section 1410 declares that "the right
to the use of running water flowing in
a river or stream or down a canon or
ravine may be acquired by appropria
tion."
Apparently the only obstacle now is
tbe decision of tbe supreme court in
that cause celebre, Lux vs. Haggin, 69
Cal. 255.
This pouderona deciaion covere fully
200 pages, and for bulk much resembles
the write-up given the Palace hotel by
the San Fraucieco Chronicle —no one ia
eaid to have read it but tbe writer and
proofreader. In thia caße. however, I
can certify that a third pereon baa read
it entire, much for the aame reaeon
Borne students of theology worry through
tbe book of Mormon, namely, in order
to be able to say they have read it. Cer
tainly no other decision ever made by
the supreme court of California ever
created euch a storm of popular disap
proval or caused tbe etate so much
expense or its citizens bo much annoy
ance and anxiety.
Tbe lawsuit was between the two
prominent firms of Milier & Lux and
Haggin >v Carr, including several other
parties on both sides. Miller & Lux
were extensively engaged iv tbe cattin
business, and bad large pastures in Tu
lare valiey, in Kern county, where their
livestock watered at tbe Kern river.
Haggin and hia associates were ownera
of large tracts of land in the same part of
the val'ey which they wished to irrigate,
and they organized the Kern River Land
and Canal company for that purpose and
proceeded to appropriate a certain quan
tity of water in tiie Kern river under the
Btate law. Lux and hia associates
brought suit to restrain thia diversion
on tbe ground that they were entitled to
all the flow in tbe Kern river as riparian
owners. Here for the first time in the
history of the etate was the issue joined
between irrigation and riparian rights,
betweeu "hinglish" and "American"
common law. The judgeof Kern county
decided in favor of irrigation. The ri-
Parian claimants then appealed to the
supreme court. Said Judge Boss in bis
dissenting opinion thereon: —
"Although numerous conteata with
reepect to water have ariaen and been
adjudicated by the supreme court of
the United Statea, neither court haa
heretofore been called upon to decide
the precise question now at issue."
The court, by a bare majority of one,
held that tbe common law, as to ripa
rian right*, is in force in California!
The annonncement of this qoeer de
cision in the fall of 1884 created an im
mense excitement all over the etate.
Such an outburst of popular indignation
never before greeted a ruling of a conrt.
People everywhere aaw that aucb an un
just decision, pushed to ita logical con
clusion, meant tbe ruin of their homea,
and in aome placea, in the heat of the
moment, armed resistance waa dis
cussed. B. A. C. Stephens.
THE WILSON BLOCK.
One of the City's Many Fine Bntlneaa
Weeks,
It is platitnde to state that in the
last six yeara Loa Angelea haa changed,
and changed to ita advantage. Mrs. 0.
Wilaon caw the possibility of a great
commercial future for the olty, and in
1888, shortly after the depression caused
by tbe boom, she erected at a cost of
$150,000 a tine business structure of
brick and iron in one of the most cen
tral business portions of the city.
The Wilaon block is an elegantly ap
pointed building for business purposes,
and it has few equals in the city in ite
imposing stability, commanding as it
does a frontage of 120 feet on Spring
etreet by 150 leet on First; it contains
160 offices fitted in suitable Btyle, large
and roomy, Mre. Wilaon having in
mind when the plana were submitted by
the archttect that amall rooms breed
email thoughts. Access to each floor
is gained by an Otia eafety elevator
driven by electric power, in charge of
competent and obliging attendants.
Mra. Wilaon intenda expending eeveral
thousands of dollars in remodeling and
refitting tbe fnterior of the building
immediately. Offices and rooms can be
had by inquiring at tbe otliee of tbe
Wilson block, room 38, third floor.
LAUX RUSSIAN KUYMSS.
A Progressive Drat and Prescription
Pharmacy.
Mr. C. Laux haa added to his drug
business what is said to be the finest
soda and mineral apparatus west of the
Rocky mountains. In connection with
the soda and mineral waters, the Laux
celebrated Russian kuymaa ia dispensed
by the glass aa wel! aa in bottles, as also
ail the well-known natural mineral
waters from the bottles, ice cold. This
business is conducted as a separate de
partment, having ita own attendants,
and does not interfere in any way with
the regular drug and prescription busi
ness of Mr. Laux, which is one of the
largest and most progressive ones on tbe
coast. Among many of the epecialtiee
which thia firm carry, we would oppor
tunely call attention to aome beautiful
extracts of orange flowers, clove, pink
and white rose, and also aome exquisite
colognes prepared by Mr. Laux at his
pharmacy, 142 South Spring street, Lob
Angelea.
MULLEN & BLUETT.
An Energetic Youths' and Osnts' Fur
nishing House.
The shop windowa ot the clothing
establishment of Messrs. Mullen &
Bluett are indeed delightful, and it con
stitute! precisely what Balzac denomin
ates the gastronomy of the eye to stroll
along Spring atreet and view the
contents of those windows at your ease.
This reliable firm will Boon have been 10
yeara in buaineaa in this city, and they
are recognized as the leading house in
fine and medium clothing and cents'
furnishing goods. Tbe boys' department
ie well supplied with novelties, aa well
aa staple goods for youths' wear. The
phenomenal success in business of
Meears. Mullen A Bluett is attributed
aolely to high standard in their method
of doing business, as they make all pur
chases for cash, giving themeelvee tbe
benefit of all cash discounts, which in
turn tbey reciprocate to their customers.
Agricultural Chemical »'otk<.
One of the newest and most interest
ing manufacturing industries in the city
is the agricultural chemical works atDOl
and 903 Macy street. S. M. Woodbridge,
Ph. li., late chemist at tbe university of
the city of New York, started the in
dustry. * The company manufacture and
import all kinds of fertilizers and manu
facture olive and castor oil. About six
mouths ago the old firm of Baruch &
Woodbridge was dissolved, as it was
thought best to form a corporation un
der the name of the Agricultural Chem
ical Works, with Charles Stern president
and L. Baruch secretary and treasurer.
The fertilizer department of the business
has so increased within lhe pact year
that the company has just taken out its
old mill of a three-ton per diem capacity
and put in one of the moet appioved
make of a capacity of M tone per day.
The compauy was the fir-et to import
from Germany Biilpbate of potash—that
form of potaßh which has given the or
ange growers of Florida tho best reeults.
A vißit to their place will well repay the
time spent there.
Dr. Woodbridge is an agricultural
chemißt who believeß in putting the
question to the Boil and letting the crops
answer to their needs. In thiß be op
poses Prof. Hilgard, who believes in an
al; zing the soil to find out the ingre
dients it may be deficient in. The
doctor publishes from time to time bul
letins showing the result of field work,
after the manner of the agricultural ex
periment stations in the eastern etateß.
Krnent G. Taylor.
Erneat G. Taylor is a well known Lob
Angelee real estate man who has been
in business for over a period of six
yeara. For some time Mr. Taylor waa
connected with the extensive real estate
bnainess of Mr. T. E. Rowan, of which
he had entire charge, where he received
a hard earned experience in manipulat
ing investments and general brokerage,
buying and selling bonda and appraiaing
general property. Mr. Taylor haa a
general real estate list of all kinds of
property, and ia also open to take charge
of property, paying taxes and aaeess
menta both for reeidenta and non-resi
denta. Mr. Taylor ia alao a notary
p üblic.
A. Lifwiniky.
The above-named gentleman is the di
rector of one oi tbe inoßt popular or
chestras in Southern California, which
bears his name. During tbe past sum
mer he haa furnished tbe music at
Hotel Rubio. He is prepared to furnish
music for balls and entertainments and
employee only tbe beat musicians in the
city. Hia music ia at all timea ac
knowledged to be of a Buperjor order
and ia en re to please the moat critical.
His addreaa ia room 30, New Wilson
block.
BIG CANAL ON THE GILA.
The Voted Croton VTorkt BnlWlor Saya
Mia Syatem Will «]oat 57.U00.000.
Chief Engineer B. S. Churoh of the
New York water works, who built the
celebrated Croton aqueduct and who
haa been at the head of the water de
partment tbere for many yeara, haa
arrived here from Arizona, where he
haa been for aome time, and is at the
Lick, says tbe San Francisco Examiner.
Mr. Church haa been consulting
engineer in the building of the great
canals and reservoirs by tbe South Qila
Canal company, 00 miles east of Yuma
on the Gila. He says tne engineering
work has been completed, and tbe con
tract for constructing tbe canals and
reservoirs baa juat been let to a Mr.
Earland of Loa Angelea.
"Tbe canal and reservoirs will, on
the atart," he said, "irrigate in the
neighborhood of 300,000 acres, and the
system may be extended to include
more than 1,000,000. The canal ays
tern, it ie expected, will coat $2,000,000.
It is a very extensive system; will bring
an immense tract of what is now arid
land under cultivation, end will do
much for Arizona.
"There is to be a canal, with a levee,
reservoirs and jetties, forming a series
of lakes for 14 milea, which give etorage
and enable the projectors to overcome
engineering difficulties. Tbe diverting
dam will be of masonry and earthwork,
and will probably be DO feet high and
1400 feet long. It will direct the water
into the chain of lakes.
"Beyond the chain of lakes it is
smooth going. There are no natural
obetacles. The canal will probably be
50 feet wide and carry eight feet of
water. The whole enterprise is on a
large scale. I do not know tbat I
ought to go into details. These are the
general outlines.
"The soil is very good. There is no
finer anywhere. St. Louis capitalists
are pushing the enterprise. Of course
tbey must apend much money before
they get any back. The land they have
got ie worthleaa without water, but with
it ia aa fine for oranges, other citrua
frnita and cropa of tbe kind grown about
Fresno as can be found in any region oi
the country."
Chief Engineer Church is consulting
engineer in come important work in
Montana and elsewhere in the north,
and will probably go to Montana before
returning to New York.
Irrigation In California.
The international irrigation congreaa
which ia to meet in Loa Angelea on Oc
tober 10th will doubtless have submit
ted to ita consideration the actual work
ings of irrigation ecbemea and projecte
in California, especially those enter
prises which bave been begun and for
warded under the Wright law and ita
amendments. In thia connection it ie
proper to call attention to the fact that
tke fiasco of the Bear Valley Irrigation
company in San Bernardino county has
no connection in any way with the gen
eral irrigation system of California.
The Bear Valley scheme was in private
banda and consisted, aa nearly aB may
be, of a large tract of arid land, with a
storage reservoir attachment. The land
was worked efT at a fancy price and
charged with a water privilege at an ex
orbitant figure, and Ibe consequence
haa been naturally tbat tbe property ia
likely to paes into tbe hands of a re
ceiver.
Thia instance of bad management, if
nothing worse, muct not bo held to
militate in any degree against the irri
gation system of California, with which
it has no connection. Districts formed
under the Wright law possess most of
the incidents of public and political
subdivisions of tbe state, whereas tbe
Rear valley property wae all held in
private corporate ownership. The fail
ure of that scheme, if it shall be a
failure, should not prejudice any one
against the general irrigation system of
tbe etate.
If|foreigners or our own citizens are
inclined to invest in irrigation bonds
tbey muat take tbe came care and pre
cautions they take in regard to other in
vestments. They must know what they
are doing, unless tbey are willing to buy
a pig in a poke, the Wright law is a
general law, but the way in which it ia
applied differs widely in different dis
tricts, and tbe investor in irrigation
bonds is bound to exercise tbe came
care tbat he would in buying railroad
bonds and stock's, or real property or
anything else. It ia more than likely
that the discussions which will take
place at the international irrigation con
greaa will suggest valuable amendments
to the Wright law which may be adopt
ed at tbe next session of the legislature.
—[8. F. Chronicle.
A Timely Warning;.
As to the organization of the district
under the Wright act itself there ia
j much to be considered, and every step
{.in the organization and management
shocld be taken cautiously and with re
gard to t.he maxim: '"Look before you
leap." Your homes are at stake. What
is done cannot be undone except by a
special act of legislature. Tbe Wright
act is a good thing sometimes, but often
it is a monster. It fails many times
beceuee it puts the management of a
great enierprise into the hands of in
competent men. Every man has his
calling, and farmers generally have not
been competent to cope with water
i rights, water wave, proper pipe lines,
reservoirs, bond issuance, bond selling,
etc., without many mistakes and great
loss. Eet the Noenach Irrigation dis
trict profit by tho mietakeß of other
districts, aud not be led astray by some
visionary notion and we shall hope to
Bee the water flow and the orchards
grow and the alfalfa lields to mow. —
[Lancaßter Gazette.
The Tipton district, in Tulare county,
haa juet been completed. The total work
accompliebed ia 27 milea of ditch, 60
drope and beadgates, 10 public bridges,
0 private bridgea, 30 sidegates and 230,
--310 cubic yards of dirt removed. The
district contains 17,040 acres of good
land, whicb ia bonded for 160,000, or Bay
$2.90 per acre. The assessment ia only
about 25 centa per acre, which ie a very
email expense for tbe benefit received.
Thia ia another district in which the
people were practically unanimous in
their demand for irrigation, and hence
i found the district system adapted to
their needs.
Hotel LlnrolD,
Situated on the corner of Hill aud ' Sec
ond atreeta, ia a tirat-claaa family hotel,
only one block from business center. A
desirable, comfortable home for tourists.
Electric cars pass to the depots.
Titos. Pascob, proprietor.
The Radama Microbe Killer company
has located at 211 West Fourth street.
Radam's microbe killer ia aold in gallon
jugs and $1 bottler!.
1 coit log;, aching i-iie» —it ait's Cream Salve
Will eivj Immediate telle! and la a positive
cure. 2>eaudSoo, Off is Vau s hu'» drug ilore,
fourth and Spring atreeta.
f/T What Leads You
\ / to use the imitations of Pearline? Some
f I trifling prize, cheap prices, or because
\ .(in*' » the grocer or peddler says "same as"'
A V** J or "as good as?" What do these
amount to, if your things are ruined in the
They
"jjCwT -X can't sec the dam-
1 1 , •""""""VkA a^e that a clan £ er "
■ |" '- V\t ous washing com-
I J pound is doing, until
| >y the damage is done; with the poorest, that
I //takes some time. With these imitations that
nobody knows about, you have to take your own risk. Be
on the safe side, and use only t>.e original—Pearline. Mill
ions of women can tell about that. Ask some of them, and
satisfy yourself. Get their experience.
Oam A Peddler* and some unscrupulous grocers will tell you '' this in r s good ai .
Oclia or "tho same as Pearline." IT'S FALSE—Pearline is never noddled,
j. -T% « and if your grocer sends you something In piece i I Pearnne. he
lt piraolr t L,„Jit back. ' " _Zl!^
for Infants and Children*
LLnaaL—eiM—ii mum in iiwnwi minim ■■mae-ii
Irecommendlt.esuperlortoanyprescription «
known to me/ H. A. Artcnxn, M. D., , r^stlon,
tU 80. Oxford St, Brooklyn, N. T. P WrtOOUt Injurious medication.
I
" The use of ' Castoria •is so universal and " For several years I have recommer.clr-d
Its merits so well known that it seem* a work your ■ Castoria, ami •hall always continueto
of supererogation to endorse It Few ore the do so as lt haa lnvarial.ly produced bcuelleuU
Intelligent families who do not keep Castoria results."
within easy reach." Edwin F. Pardee, M. D.,
Cianos M^™^ k 3 g, ty "The Wlnthrop," 125 th Street aud 7th Aye.,
Late Pastor Bloomlngdale Beformed Church. New York City.
Tbi CcsTAirn Coitfast, 77 MenruT Street, Nkw York.
WONDERFUL CURES
BY
DR. WONG,
713 SOUTH MAIN ST. LOS ANGELES, CAL.
"Skilful euro Increases longevity to the "Ie" 'niously locating diseases through th
world." pa.*, and excellent remedies are groat blent
lngstj the world."
Four years ago my daughter, Vorglnia Bell, was treated by Dr. Wong for what phyrtolam
called hip disease, and h"\d pronounced Incurable at er treating h< r lor eight year*. i<r. Wong's
dl'gnrsU on tbat the was afflicted with one of the tntrteen forms of cancer, His m*di't,i«
effected a permanent cure In seveu months time. Two years aga my gruudsou nerame blind in
one eve. Hr. Wong restored his sight in threo weeks' time. a. LASSWKLL,
rlavannnii, Oal.
After I hsd been treated o'even years, by six different doctors, forcnmuibption, aud they
had ttatod that I couldn't live twomentlis. I ion* Dr. Wong'f medicine find wm cured in seven
mouths. I enjoy excellent health, and weigh 170 pouu.i.. t ,. MRa A - AVI.LA,
1012 Brookltn aye., I.os Augele\ Oal.
PRIVATE. KKRVOD3 AND CHRONIC DIS2A9E3 OF MBN quickly cared wlihout the me
ofpoiinns
4000 cures. Ten years In Los Angele*.
DR. WONG, 713 South Main St.. Los Angeles.
WINE MERCHANT, 131 N.'^^n^^^n ml 38.
■ V* jy? W?si 33w <5t suchas: l,os& Itlunltooil, 'I'irrt! »•<•<■!-
I \l\ \) \£ "tT Ins. l'aliiw In the fcteU, iJchiliiy, I'lmtleN, 3lrr 2-
RH i ijflk/ \* ea&lL *•"•> Seminal Weoltnewn.Xifjrlilly EujisMtoua, luium
■ V tonoy, l>cv;j>on<lCncy, Varicocele, I'rrTinUtireinv-i
KJ and 4,'oaMiiuatloii. Curen rrhero alt else fnil». Tho doctor
eH hasclifcovorc(ltlioacilvoprl:icli>loornvhic.'i the vitality cl tho
BEFORE and AFTER gEitl.ti. appnrataa J> dcponf".c:it.
The rnnaon why miCfprom are 1:01 ci'.rou hy phy!«!plong and medlctneQ !s hpcniwe over 00 prrcent
are troubled with l»r«».tn<lC», for wlilch ct'Pl I it INK Is the o::ly known rfhK'dy lorura JlO cens.
plaint without nn operation A wHtton 4in:-:\-trsfro lor*'hv.:<i t-c rroftoy if A permanerl- pnr« fa '
not enVciPri hy the lisp nf wlx bo*p». {1.r.") n hn\-, Mx for <V \ HJivtri f.r> clrr" ■' ■■: • ' tuatlauuitnlS,
Address UAVOJ, atSOICIMSS CO., I: o. Jinx C 9.0, fcau Francisco, Cat Mjriiutt 11
C. 11. II AN RE, Agent, 177 and 171) N. Spring St., Los Angfi-s. Oil.
*m g*\ MANHOOD ffiSToßiDS'=£%
BB W *<aiK.»I efl,efi ' 1 ' ■" J Weak Memory, lions of iiriuit l'i":t"\ ■! :. m . \7..\. ,
R*' r \.) (y* tji Lost Manhood. Nlixhtly Emission*. Nervooi n it's,ailrtralrmitivJ iocs o£ ;•' v.l
V jmJ in(;i'i;eriit,vo()ri/nnnofeltlifTfit'.tcaiif-ortbyovt I 'oxcrii'>j.,yi»:ithrf-alerr«r»,
?r c| o*pp 1 "jPQaIRb uso or f<)hacco. opium ornr.lm*.3lnritp, vrhi'tU iontl to InCn I ry,
»M>nS2b*£L JK. or Insanity. Cnn De carried I n vc«i. pot-'.---. 1. «i nr..»b. ) .«r,(% fortri/i,
V^trrL^Wr^v^^^^l-^^»v iii'Ul prftpnid. With a ifiiorderweulve v. written ji?!ir;tinu« toeicra
TJ^^^SrrriSS 1 !. ..J « or refHuu the mono v. C!lrriil!i r f rrv. i'*oU\ hy nlltiruKPists. AfK forH, tn'<!
bEFORt AND AFTER ÜblfiG.ao other. Address SEKVK SErJDC©.., Mr.-jtu; ago. Ilj*
For Sale in Los Cal.. by GODFREY & MOOES, Drufglfito, 100 South
Soring" streot.
UNiON~OiL COMPANY
OF - CALIFORNIA.
ProfJucers and Refiners of PETROLEUM OIL
Maniifucturers of High Grade Cyliutler and Engltie (jIU.
Large Producers ot Fnel Oil.
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE, 204 CALIFORNIA STREET
BRANCH OFFICE, 135 E. SECOND ST., LOS ANGELES
GEORGE M.SMITH,
Tel. 1174. 10 o iy Manager Los Anffelps Branch.
COMING S
THE ONLY ARTIST IN THB CITY USIXO THAT JIA(;n TOOh,
THE AIR BRUSH, 1 SEPIA PORTRAITS.
COPIED FROM rHUI'O OK ORtulNAl, ttt'U^O.
STUDIO, NO. 221 SOUTH SPRING STREET, UPSTAIRS
Ce7~bketoUea Made lor Any Kind oi Illustration, Xie atlag, Et , a-18 It
