The daily sentinel., 1904-07-26
(Continued from Page .. J

and if the petitioners in this case
have followed the Law as specified in
the act of 1901. it would seem that
constitutional objection could not be
held valid.
The third objection to the validity
of the bonds, or rather questioning
the jurisdiction of the court to deter
mine the validity of the bonds in this
kind of q proceeding, is also present
ed by what is denominated the fourth
defense to the petition in this case.
and the reason as"gined for this de-
Tense is that the jurisdiction of the
court to determine these matters and
the proceedings by which the court is
to determine them. is not mentioned
in the title TO t act of 1901.
The court feels inclined to take the
position that if the proceedings have
been regular in all respects and in
conformity with the law in tie organ
ization of the districts. and in the
issuance of the bonds, the fact that
pass upon thei- validity in this sort
of a proceeding, would in no way
affect the validity of the bonds.
This court is given original juris-
diction by the constitution i'll all mat
ters which may be presented to it for
determination. and the only question
therefore would be as to the proceed
ings by which jurisdiction was sought
to be conferred upon the court in
these special proceedings. The par
ties have submitted so far as their
persons are concerned. to the juris
diction OF the court. and the only
question would be as to whether the
court has acquired proper jurisdiction
of the subject matter of the action.
If the statute does confer juris die
tion, then there is no question but
that the proceedings by which the
court assumes jurisdiction are regular
and final.
If the statute fails to confer juris-
diction in this special proceeding.
then there might bo question
whether the Judgment of the decree
of the court declaring the bonds to
be legal would be of any force or
effect whatever; but certainly the de-
claration of the court that the pro-
ceedings had been regular and that
the bonds are valid, could not do any
harm to the bonds. The title to the
act of 1901 is very volumirous and
seems to provide for almost every
phase of the case that could arise.
and there is some question in my
mind whether that portion of the
title which provides for the issuance
of the bonds is not sufficient to Justify
the court in assuming juri sdiciton as
to the validity of this issue.
Having some question, or rather
! having but little question. but that
| Jurisdiction is conferrede by that act
upon the court to pass upon the val
idity of the issuance of those bonds
In a proceeding of this kind. / feel
disposed to override the objection to
the fourth defense contained in the
answer, and to assume jurisdiction to
pass upon the validity of the proceed
ings upon which the bonds were is
sued.
And the court therefore finds from
the petition, which is confessed to be
true and the pleadings and from the
law as has been presented to the
court that the proceedings by which
this Irrigation Dis
trict was formed and the bonds were
issued. has been in all respects regular.
and such proceedings are approved
and confii med; aud that the bonds is
sued or to be issued under such pro-
ceedings are in all respects valid.
By the Court.
THERON STEVENS.