The Kevin review. [volume] (Kevin, Mont.) 1922-1929, 1922-12-07
TREASURE STATE FARM AND LIVESTOCK
DRAINAGE DISTRICT LAW is
UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT

advance of an award, does not rem
der it obnoxious to the provisions Of
the constitution which declares that
private property shall not be taken
or damaged for public use without
inst compensation having been first
made to or paid into court for the
owner.
"Objection is made that the stat
ute denies to one originally in the
district the right of jury trial upon
the question of benefits received or
damages suffered by his land, and
that it discriminates in favor of the
land owner whose property is
brought into the district after it is
organized, by extending to hin the
right to have the question of benefits
or damages determined by a jury.
"The proceedings by which a drain
district is created and managed is
purely statutory. 1t is not an Ordin-
airy civil action but a special pro-
ceeding, in which the right to a jury
trial did not exist at the time u
constitution was adopted. Hence the
right of trial by jury as a guarantee
by the constitution is not impaired.
The general rule is: Trial by jury
in eminent domain proceedings is
not essential to due process of law,
and a state may authorize any just
and reasonable method of determin-
ing the amount of compensation for
land taken for the public use with
out violating the fourteenth amend
ment or the similar provisions of our
state constitution.
EoroI D.ofootiop Ciuo~
"The statute does not deny to the
landowners whose properties are in
Guided in the district originally the
equal protection of the law. The
rule that general laws shall operate
uniformly does not prohibit a reason
able classification of subjects. The
situation of the land owners whose
properties are originally in the dis
trict is so far different from that of
the land owners whose properties are
brought in after the district is Great
ed as to furnish the basis for a rea-I
sonable classification, hence the stat
ute is not open to this objection. !
"The statute does not attempt to
delegate a legislative power to the
judiciary and hence does not impInge
upon the provisions of section l., art
icle w of our constitution.
appellant contends that the pro-
vision of Section 1880 COT the drain
age law that Ownership of land
within the district shall not disqual-
ify a person from acting as commits
sioner' is violative of that fundamen-
tai maxim of our law that no mar
shall be judge of his own cause, and
support for this contention is found
in a decision In the case of the COM
missioners of Union District No. 1
against Smith, but the decision is
contrary to the overwhelming weight
of authority as disclosed by the notes
to the same case.
s'The reason for our conclusion
that the statute is not open to this
objection is made manifest by the
statute itself, which requires the as
sessment of benefits and damages to
be reviewed by the court after notice
to all interested, and a hearing in
which the assessments may be alter
ed. In other words the commits
sioners act only in an advisory capa-
city. Their decision is not final. The
general rule is: Drainage commits
sioners are not disqualified by the
mere fact of their ownership of lands
lying in the drainage district {
'"The contention that the interested
land n have the right to select {
the commissioners is without merit. /
In the absence of any constitutional I
restriction the legislature may des-
ignate the officers who shall con- {
the drains and supervise the t
work of the district, and may pro- {
vide the method of their selection. ,
Drain commissioners are not consti- (
tutional officers but mere agents Of f
the state. f
FINALLY it is commended that the f
statute authorizes the imposition of
taxes not uniform upon the same G
class of subjects and thereby violates t
II, Article XII of our state |
constitution. Special assessments
for the construction and maintenance
Of drainage works, although imposed
and collected in virtue of the taxing a
power, are no taxes within the mean c
ing of that term rs employed in Art
icle IL; hence the requirement that '
taxes must be uniform has nc appli- a
cation here. b
1--WE are of the opinion that our t
statute is not open to any of the OBJ
jections urged against it."