CALIFORNIA. 



103 



lation may be generous without neglecting to be 

 wise. No franchise in perpetuity should be granted ; 

 none that cannot be always regulated in terms and 

 retired at any time by equitable process. Under the 

 provisions of any scheme the separate ownership of 

 land and water must often be the case, and may 

 become the rule. It never should be in the power 

 of either to dictate terms to the other. The right 

 of every section to its natural pro rata of water, and 

 to participate in the benefits of any plan that may 

 diminish or increase it, should be recognized, and, 

 if possible, guarded. 



Governor Irwin, in his inaugural address, 

 speaking on the same subject, says : 



In providing a system of irrigation it would seem 

 necessary that the Legislature should provide 



1. For the division of the portions of the State 

 which need irrigation into districts, in such a man- 

 ner that all the lands which must be irrigated, if at 

 all, from the same source of supply, shall form a 

 single district. It will devolve on 1 the Legislature 

 to adopt the plan which shall offer the best guaran- 

 tees for having this work done in a proper manner, 

 and the most economically. 



2. For the appropriation by irrigation districts of 

 such unappropriated waters as they may require for 

 irrigation purposes ; and for the acquisition, by such 

 districts, by purchase or condemnation, of such wa- 

 ters held by adverse right as they may require. 

 Irrigation will be impossible, unless irrigation dis- 

 tricts are clothed with these rights. 



3. That each separate portion of land forming an 

 irrigation district shall have an indefeasible right to 

 its pro rata share of the water belonging to the dis- 

 trict. The right of each portion of the land of a 

 district to a pro rata share of the water appropriated 

 to such district results, as a necessary corollary, 

 from the power assumed, first, to form all the lands 

 susceptible of irrigation from the same source into 

 a district ; and, second, to give such district the 

 right to appropriate, purchase, or condemn, the wa- 

 ter necessary for its irrigation. 



In addition to all this, the Legislature must de- 

 termine the financial basis on which irrigation shall 

 rest. The financial problem is likely to prove the 

 most difficult of solution of any connected with irri- 

 gation. There would be a manifest injustice in 

 making the cost of irrigation a charge either on the 

 State or on counties. The justice of making each 

 district bear the expense of its own irrigation seems 

 so clear that I hardly think there can be any differ- 

 ence of opinion on that point. But there may be 

 some question whether this expense should be borne 

 by the whole property of the district, or only by 

 the land. A very little reflection, however, will, I 

 think, suffice to show that only the land, and not 

 the whole property of the district, should be taxed 

 to provide irrigation. Irrigation is a process of fer- 

 tilization, the water being the fertilizer. Its effects 

 on land are analogous to those of guano, or any 

 other substance used to increase its productiveness. 

 By increasing the productiveness of land, it adds to 

 its value. And as the owners of the land are the 

 persons chiefly benefited by the additional value 

 given to it by irrigation, they should bear the ex- 

 pense of irrigation. In other words, the cost of 

 bringing water upon land should be paid out of the 

 increased value given to the land. 



Considerable excitement was caused through- 

 out the State, on the 27th of August, by the 

 suspension of the Bank of California in San 

 Francisco. This was one of the largest and 

 most powerful financial institutions on the Pa- 

 cific coast, and its embarrassment was said to 

 have been caused by its heavy advances to 

 various enterprises, some of which were of a 



speculative character. Mr. Win. C. Ealston, 

 its president, was a very active business-man, 

 who had engaged in a multiplicity of enter- 

 prises, and the agency of the bank had been 

 largely used in forwarding these. It was found 

 that the liabilities of the institution amounted 

 to about $14,000,000, while its available assets 

 were little more than $7,000,000. At a meet- 

 ing of the directors on the day of the suspen- 

 sion Mr. Ralston was asked to resign, which 

 he did. He then went immediately to a bath- 

 ing establishment at what was called the North 

 Beach, and while in an excited and heated con- 

 dition plunged into the water and swam a con- 

 siderable distance. He. then sank and was 

 drowned. An inquest was held, but it was left 

 in doubt whether his death was the result of 

 accident or a purpose to commit suicide. Mr. 

 Ralston was born in Pennsylvania in 1830, and 

 in early life was a shoemaker. He afterward 

 went to California and became a clerk in a 

 hank. Subsequently he acted as agent at Pa- 

 nama for Garrison's steamship line. In 1852 

 he returned to San Francisco and became a 

 partner in the banking-house of Garrison, Fritz 

 & Ralston, and afterward in that of Donahue, 

 Kelly & Co. In 1864 he organized the Bank 

 of California, and became its cashier and soon 

 after its president. He was at one time re- 

 garded as very wealthy, and built a house at 

 Belmont at a cost of $1,000,000, supporting his 

 establishment at an expense of about $350,000 

 a year and entertaining "with great munificence. 

 His house would accommodate one hundred 

 and fifty guests, and he not unfrequently 

 entertained nearly that number. His salary 

 as president of the bank was $50,000 a year, 

 but formed only a small part of his income. 

 The bank resumed business early in September, 

 its stockholders making up its losses from their 

 private resources. 



It was decided in the Fifteenth District 

 Court, in September, that the tax levy of 

 1872-'73 was in certain of its features illegal, 

 and that taxes paid under protest must he 

 refunded with interest. It appears that the 

 Board of Equalization reduced the assessments 

 in Marin County 25 per cent., and in Almeda 

 and Monterey Counties 10 per cent., making 

 an aggregate reduction of $2.000,0'00 in the 

 valuation in those counties. The board also 

 added from 18 to 20 per cent, to the rate of 

 taxation in the city and county of San Fran- 

 cisco and certain other counties as an allow- 

 ance for delinquencies. Besides this, the reduc- 

 tion made in the above-mentioned counties 

 added considerably to the taxation for the rest 

 of the State. Suit was brought in San Fran- 

 cisco against the tax-collector for the recovery 

 of $1,500 paid under protest, and judgment 

 was obtained for the amount with interest. 

 Judge Dwinelle decided that the Board of 

 Equalization had no power under the constitu- 

 tion to impose an additional rate of taxation 

 to cover delinquencies, or to reduce or add to 

 the valuation of property made officially by 



