Statement of the Case. all steps necessary therefor, including the election of officers as provided in the act; that the board of directors submitted to the electors the question, whether a special assessment for been exhausted by expenditures herein authorized therefrom, and the board deem it necessary or expedient to raise additional money for said purposes, estimate and determine the amount of money necessary to be raised, and shall immediately thereafter call a special election, at which shall be submitted to the electors of such district possessing the qualifications prescribed by this act, the question whether or not the bonds of said district in the amount as determined shall be issued. Notice of such election must be given by posting notices in three public places in each election precinct in said district for at least twenty days, and also by publication of such notice in some newspaper published in the county where the office of the board of directors of such district is required to be kept, once a week for at least three successive weeks. Such notices must specify the time of holding the election, the amount of bonds proposed to be issued; and said election must be held, and the result thereof determined and declared in all respects as nearly as practicable in conformity with the provisions of this act governing the election of officers: Provided, That no informalities in conducting such an election shall invalidate the same, if the election shall have been otherwise fairly conducted. At such election the ballots shall contain the words Bonds - Yes,' or 'Bonds-No,' or words equivalent thereto. If a majority of the votes cast are 'Bonds - Yes,' the board of directors shall cause bonds in said amount to be issued; if a majority of the votes cast at any bond election are Bonds - No,' the result of such election shall be so declared, and entered of record. And whenever thereafter said board in its judgment deems it for the best interests of the district that the question of issuance of bonds in said amount, or any amount, shall be submitted to said electors, it shall so declare of record in its minutes, and may thereupon submit such questions to said electors in the same manner and with like effect as at such previous election. . . (The remainder of the section provides for the maturing and payment of the bonds, and is not material.) (Section 16 is not material.) "SEC. 17. Said bonds and the interest thereon shall be paid by revenue derived from an annual assessment upon the real property of the district; and all the real property in the district shall be and remain liable to be assessed for such payments, as hereinafter provided. "SEC. 18. The assessor must, between the first Monday in March and the first Monday in June, in each year, assess all real property in the district to the persons who own, claim or have the possession or control thereof, at its full cash value. He must prepare an assessment book, with appropriate headings, in which must be listed all such property within the district, in which must be specified, in separate columns, under the appropriate head: "First. The name of the person to whom the property is assessed. If Statement of the Case. $6000 should be made for the purpose of defraying the expenses of organization, and that the electors approved of such assessment and the proper proceedings were thereafter taken the name is not known to the assessor, the property shall be assessed to unknown owners.' "Second. - Land by township, range, section or fractional section, and when such land is not a Congressional division or subdivision, by metes and bounds, or other description sufficient to identify it, giving an estimate of the number of acres, locality and the improvements thereon. "Third. - City and town lots, naming the city or town, and the number and block, according to the system of numbering in such city or town, and the improvements thereon. "Fourth. The cash value of real estate other than city or town lots. "Fifth. The cash value of improvements on such real estate. "Sixth. - The cash value of city and town lots. "Seventh. —The cash value of improvements on city and town lots. "Eighth. The cash value of improvements on real estate assessed to persons other than the owners of the real estate. "Ninth. The total value of all property assessed, "Tenth. of directors. "Eleventh. The total value of all property after equalization by the board Such other things as the board of directors may require. "Any property which may have escaped the payment of any assessment for any year shall, in addition to the assessment for the then current year, be assessed for such year with the same effect and with the same penalties as are provided for such current year." (Section 19 is not material.) "SEC. 20. On or before the first Monday in August in each year, the assessor must complete his assessment book and deliver it to the secretary of the board, who must immediately give notice thereof, and of the time the board of directors, acting as a board of equalization, will meet to equalize assessments, by publication in a newspaper published in each of the counties comprising the district. The time fixed for the meeting shall not be less than twenty nor more than thirty days from the first publication of the notice, and in the meantime the assessment book must remain in the office of the secretary for the inspection of all persons interested. "SEC. 21. Upon the day specified in the notice required by the preceding section for the meeting, the board of directors, which is hereby constituted a board of equalization for that purpose, shall meet and continue in session from day to day, as long as may be necessary, not to exceed ten days, exclusive of Sundays, to hear and determine such objections to the valuation and assessment as may come before them, and the board may change the valuation as may be just. The secretary of the board shall be present during its sessions and note all changes made in the valuation of property, and in the names of the persons whose property is assessed, and Statement of the Case. by which to assess the property owners, and that plaintiff's, Mrs. Bradley's, assessment amounted to $51.31, which she refused to pay because the act was, as alleged, unconstitutional and void. The bill further states that the collector then proceeded to enforce the collection by a sale of the land, and did sell it to the irrigation district, but that no deed has been given to the within ten days after the close of the session he shall have the total values, as finally equalized by the board, extended into columns and added. "SEC. 22. The board of directors shall then levy an assessment sufficient to raise the annual interest on the outstanding bonds, and at the expiration of ten years after the issuing of bonds of any issue must increase said assessment to an amount sufficient to raise a sum sufficient to pay the principal of the outstanding bonds as they mature. The secretary of the board must compute and enter in a separate column of the assessment book the respective sums, in dollars and cents, to be paid as an assessment on the property therein enumerated. When collected, the assessment shall be paid into the district treasury, and shall constitute a special fund, to be called the Bond Fund of Irrigation District.' In case of the neglect or refusal of the board of directors to cause such assessment and levy to be made as in this act provided, then the assessment of property made by the county assessor and the state board of equalization shall be adopted, and shall be the basis of assessments for the district, and the board of supervisors of the county in which the office of the board of directors is situated shall cause an assessment roll for said district to be prepared, and shall make the levy required by this act, in the same manner and with the like effect as if the same had been made by said board of directors, and all expenses incident thereto shall be borne by such district. In case of the neglect or refusal of the collector or treasurer of the district to perform the duties imposed by law, then the tax collector and treasurer of the county in which the office of the board of directors is situated must, respectively, perform such duties, and shall be accountable therefor upon their official bonds as in other cases. "SEC. 23. The assessment upon real property is a lien against the property assessed from and after the first Monday in March for any year, and the lien for the bonds of any issue shall be a preferred lien to that for any subsequent issue, and such lien is not removed until the assessments are paid or the property sold for the payment thereof." (Sections 24 to 30, inclusive, provide for collecting the assessments and for the sale of the lands of those not paying, the giving of deeds upon such sale, and for the redemption of the lands so sold and for the character of the deed as to its being prima facie evidence, and in some cases conclusive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings, and such sections and the remainder of the act are not material to the present inquiry.) Statement of the Case. district by the collector, and an injunction is asked to restrain the execution and delivery of any deed by such collector, because of the alleged invalidity of the act under which the proceedings were taken. The bill also alleged a proposed issue of bonds to the amount of $400,000, subject to the decision of the electors at an election proposed to be held under the provisions of the act. Various reasons are set out in the bill upon which are based the allegation of the invalidity of the act, among which, it is stated, that the law violates the Federal Constitution in that it amounts to the taking of the plaintiff's property without due process of law. It is also stated that the act is in violation of the state constitution in many different particulars, which are therein set forth. The bill also asks that the assessment may be set aside and all the proceedings declared void on the ground of the invalidity of the act itself. The defendants demurred to the first bill of the complainant and the demurrer was overruled. The complainants were granted leave to serve a second amended bill to which the defendants put in an answer, denying many of the material allegations of the bill, and claiming the entire validity of the act. The case came on for hearing before the Circuit Judge by consent, upon the second amended bill of complainants, and defendants' answer thereto, and the court gave judgment against the defendants because of the unconstitutionality of the irrigation act, it being, as held, in violation of the Federal Constitution, as the effect of such legislation by the State was to deprive complainants of their property without due process of law. The decision of the Circuit Judge was given for the reasons stated by him in his opinion rendered upon the argument of the demurrer to the bill of complainants, and some of the facts stated in the bill and admitted by the demurrer were denied in the answer subsequently served by the defendants. The sole ground of the decision was, however, the unconstitutionality of the act, as above stated. From Citations for Appellants. the judgment entered upon the decision of the Circuit Judge the irrigation district appealed directly to this court by virtue of the provisions of § 5, c. 517 of the Laws of 1891, 26 Stat. 826, which give an appeal from the Circuit Court direct to the Supreme Court "in any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States"; and also "in any case in which the constitution or law of a State is claimed to be in contravention to the Constitution of the United States." The case was argued in this court with Tregea v. Modesto Irrigation District, No. 13, post, 179. Mr. A. L. Rhodes (Mr. R. Percy Wright, Mr. John R. Aitken and Mr. Samuel F. Smith were with him on his brief) for appellants. He cited Atchinson &c. Railroad v. Wilson, 33 Kansas, 223; Baltimore & Potomac Railroad v. Fifth Baptist Church, 137 U. S. 568; Burnett v. Sacramento, 12 California, 76; Hamilton Bank v. Dudley, 2 Pet. 492; Central Irrigation District v. De Lappe, 79 California, 351; Crall v. Poso Irrigation District, 87 California, 140; Clement v. Everest, 29 Michigan, 19; Chambers County v. Clews, 21 Wall. 317; Cleveland v. Tripp, 13 R. I. 50; Kentucky Railroad Tax cases, 115 U. S. 321; Coster v. Tide Water Co., 3 C. E. Green, 54; Daily v. Swope, 47 Mississippi, 367; Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nevada, 408; Elmwood v. Marcy, 92 U. S. 289; Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co., 28 California, 345; East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How. 511; Gut v. Minnesota, 9 Wall. 35; Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701; Lux v. Haggin, 69 California, 255; Madera Irrigation District, 92 California, 296; Modesto Irrigation District v. Tregea, 88 California, 334; Mulligan v. Smith, 59 California, 206; Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691; McMillan v. Anderson, 94 U. S. 37; Oury v. Duffield, 1 Arizona, 509; Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U. S. 660; Pittsburgh v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421; People v. Turnbull, 93 California, 630; People v. Selma Irrigation District, 98 California, 206; People v. Hagar, 52 California, 171; Excelsior Planting Co. v. Tax Collector, 39 La. Ann. 455; People v. Brooklyn, 4 |