Show I 1 I 1 r iii sl pill li lonn 1 I IM i 1 ob 01 maul ihrl 1111 itar f suit tilt krux 11 o 0 o 0 to t tt all lit ili tit f I 1 nac tint it A r tilt lust ittu IM tu ii inal p ill t i MH mill ich ans f dij ali th tilt tat tl TI threatening loud that lay iloah ahk horizon or I 1 tab agricot hn r bevelot ment was effectively 11 indred ILI bi b a sweeping ruling of if the supreme court lat it thursday holding the state irrigation tax Is taw to be constitutional go far a as the chuk tar far raised ar A un 1 it berned the effect of the ani 11 1 ng be to revive and anti renew a score of red im it ion projects throughout the tile alrh have been hati hanking gingi firo fire kinec i bialow annta cast upon the law 1 it opens the tile wa a for the state lind blaid to re autu atti olit old poll of annin to erlat at irrigation enterprises ind in lit every aly y griems the tile awakening of through out the tile state I 1 ilic I 1 si t 1 bissill the ie Is alven dpn in the case caille of baite on bailif of john lund berg asking for a writ of tion the reen river ton tion coni piny it froni disposing of it irrigation bondi the tile interest on wilh he lit at ai i holder in the district in question lon would hive to help an by q dl dis brict tax he ile brought the tile suit tor for the tile purport bt of testing the ill efty of the liw under which irrigation districts mai be create 1 by arh ue companies compan lea bonds issued for tion work and redeemed rede eniel 1 b a special ltv ti upon the tho owners of the lin lini i proved land the question wj wil argued list icek beanie the tile supreme court I 1 our t rounda rounds on oil which tit the e question 1 0 of Aall dit rested were enumerate attell 1 tilt chief of which was that provision of the tile liw providing for the seizure of property for the non payment of the tax ta it tho th supreme court recently the state drainage ta t tv law a to be ancon i I 1 question was lining diatel dalbed i gan the irrigation law itu which ha llis much in coin coill mon men with till the former fo riner particularly so far its its provi blonks for special tax taxation are concerned bearing earing b complications the state I 1 lind ind board immediately decided to hold up tip all applications I 1 for st ite aid and every private project in lit the state hung in the balance it if the law had been declared unconstitutional many companies that had floated bonds would have nave had their suret knocked from under them and others would have been forced to abandon their plans pl ins because t bond las i could not be made no in lit 1 but the court holds fields that the defect in the drainage law Is not to be found in the irrigation law the opinion Is written by justice frick and concurred in by all members of the bench thus stamping the law liw as valad and nd refusing the application tor for the writ of prohibition in a se pirate irate concurring opinion justice antin tes that there are 0 other ther in he the it law beside those attacker eJ on which aich the cot constitutionality institution coull coul I 1 be questioned I 1 however to ev er 14 these do tie not offer objection tol to the 1 ind lind owner owners who tic pa pl the tax tx there Is little dinger of further con t vera at present the 1 ito land board his ivis pending before it applications for more than 1 in loans of state funds upon the tile bond and securities tits of irrigation districts allese will be considered nos nov a tit soon ae as At attorney torne gemeril birnes c cm in denler the board in opinion on tho tile mattir r |