Show Tunnel funnel Bonds fonds Constitutional Declares Supreme Court n i i The Colorado supreme court In a unanimous decision on Wednesday of last week held constitutional the law enacted by the legislature which and authorized the Issuance of bonds created the Mortal Moffat tunnel district to the extent of for the construction of ot the big bore through the continental divide Word Vord comes comes from Denver that work started last summer will be resumed this winter and that bonds will be bo printed and sold at once It Is Is' possible that the plaintiffs inthe In Inthe inthe the case or the Intervenors may take the case to the United States supreme court Attorneys who havo have studied the record In the case do not fear such a move Only one federal feder feder- al hl question Is Involved they say say say- the question of benefits conferred upon the property In the tunnel dis dis- dis- dis This question they say has been passed upon by the United States supreme court The court has held that a law dealing with a public public pub pub- lic lie improvement is constitutional If its execution confers benefits There is no doubt that the of ot the tunnel will confer benefits The law contains a special declaration by bythe bythe bythe the general assembly that the property property property prop prop- erty in n the district will be benefited and the preponderance of t the testimony testimony testimony mony In the he case Is that all property In the district will derive great benefit benefit benefit ben ben- from the construction of the tun tun- nel The courts court's decision was rendered in the case entitled Mary MUlheim Millheim against the Moffat tunnel commis commis- sion The case w was s appealed from the Jefferson county district court in which District Judge Samuel Johnson Johnson Johnson John John- son had upheld the law Jaw After Atter the filing of the original suit by which the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the commission from issuing the bonds a number of residents of Jefferson county intervened These interveners ers not only opposed the tunnel inthe in inthe the district court but also appeared in the supreme co court rt and through gh their attorneys in an attempt to show that the tunnel law constituted a violation of ot both state and federal constitutions n o |