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"All laws in force at the time of tbe adoption of this consti tution, and not inconsistent therewith, until altered or repealed by the legisla ture, shall continne aa if the same had not been adopted."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