284 HARVARD LAW REVIEWl
Constitutional Law — Exemption of Veterans from Civil Service Rules. — The Constitution of New York, Art. 5, § 9, provides that appointments in the civil service shall be made according to fitness, which shall be determined so far as is practicable by competitive examination; but veterans shall be entitled to preference without regard to their standing on any list from which such appointment may be made. Held, a statute providing that when a veteran is an applicant competitive examinations shall not be deemed practicable if the salary of the position does not exceed $4 j er day, but that the only examination shall be one to test the ability of the applicant to fill the position, is unconstitutional and void. In re Keymer^ 35 N. Y. Supp. 161. 'i'he provisions of the New York statutes in regard to veterans in the civil service were gradually relaxed from 1883 to 1894, when the legislature declared that the civil service laws should not apply at all in cases where the compensation did not exceed $4 per day. This statute has been abrogated by the new Constitu- tion {In re Siteeley,'^,^^. Y. Supp. 369), the provisions of which in regard to the preference of veterans are very similar to those of the law which was passed by the Massachusetts legislature last June over the Governor's veto. Acts of Mass., 1695, chap. 501. The court says that the power to declare examinations impracticable in one case implies the power to declare them impracticable in every case, and thus to annul the whole constitutional provision. The judgment of the lower court awarding a man- damus to the Commissioners to give the orator a non-competitive examination is accordingly reversed. Constitutional Law — P'ederal Courts — Following State Decisions — Change of Ruling. — A federal court made a decision respecting the rights of par- ties before it in certain property, based upon a series of decisions of the highest court of a State, as to the interpretation of a statute of such State, and the decision was affirmed upon appeal. In a later case respecting the identical property, the State court reversed its former decisions. Held, this fact does not make it the duty of the federal court to reverse its decision as to the rights of the parties in the same property, in pro- ceedings subsequently arising. National Foundry ^ Pipe Works m. Oconto Water Co,, 68 Fed. Rep. 1006. The court says (though the decision of the case does not require it) that ** it will doubtless be proper for this court, in any case hereafter arising, where rights have accrued subsequent to the last decision of the Supreme Court of the State upon the question, to give due consideration to the later rulings of that tribunal. " This would seem to be sound, though no cases in which this additional step has been taken, have been called to our attention. The decision is in accordance with authority. Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20. A note at page 34 collects the principal cases bearing upon the subject. Constitutional Law — Public Use — Irrigation. — An act of California allowed fifty landholders, whose lands were susceptible of a common system of irriga- tion, to submit a plan of irrigation for the whole common district, which plan, if ac- cepted by two thirds of the landholders of the district, was to be binding. To meet expenses, all the lands of that district could be assessed, and for failure of payment, sold. The landowners could be heard only on the question of valuation. The act was held unconstitutional. Bradley v. J-allbrook Irrigation District, 68 Fed. Rep. 948. The court objects to this as a taking of property for other than a public use, on the ground that the landowners of the district were the only persons benefited. But it is difficult to distinguish this from such C2iS&S2iS, Hagar . Reclamatioji District, iii U. S. 701, where a similar act to drain swamp lands was upheld. It is not merely a question of the public health ; the legislature may provide also for other phases of the public benefit, audit would seem that the turning of large tracts from deserts into gardens was a suitable field for such legislative consideration. This view was taken in a recent case in Nebraska, which held that the taking of land for purposes of irri- gation lay within the discretion of the legislature. Paxton Irrigatitig Co. v. Farmers* Irrigation Co., 64 N. W. Rep. 343 (Neb.). F^om another aspect, too, it is proper for the legislature to interpose a controlling hand. The irrigation necessary to improve these lands could only be accomplished by the co-operation of all the landowners, and it has been laid dowi^ that the legislature has a power "to establish regulations by which adjoining lands, held by various owners in severalty, and in the improvement of which all have a common interest, but which by reason of the peculiar natural condition of the whole tract cannot be improved or enjoyed by any of them without the concurrence of all, may be reclaimed and made useful at their joint expense. " Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 613. The court, in fact, seems to admit this view, and goes off to discuss the case on another ground.
