OCR Text |
Show lb BY A DIVIDED COURT ; H IfV Important Decision By Idaho H 1,'i' Supreme Tribunal. I k J " DIVISION IS PECULIAR H 5 All Agree Tint Judgment of Lower B ' Court Should Do Affirmed, but They H Differ About the Constitutionality H , of Acts Under Which Organization H WfiB Affected- Question nt Issue. H Was Constitutionality of Lw Fro- H i vldinp; for Irrigation Districts H Case Comes 1'ioin Cnyon County. H ITRIIUNK M'lK'lAI, B r.ol e Ida Mnrrh S - The Fupremc B c urt t idn hindod down nn Important H dc IRioi tifflrmlng (he constitutionality H of the law providing for the orgnnlsa- H tinn of Irrigation districts The case B cam' up from ( nnon county, where the B . Done rmtri t ho been organised, Ink- H " Ins In n large territory under the H inn Ills nnd eldwell cans). The opl'.lon Is by u divided court, H thief Justice Qunrlcs dissenting The dl lelon Is how ever, peculiar. .Ml agree that the Judgment nf the lower court should he nmrmed but they differ nhout H the constitutionality of nets under "" which the organisation effected !l hlef Justice ijnarles holds the original irrigation district law Is constitutional, while the other members of the court I kj (hold the se II n provlllng for nssess- ft flments Is Invalid The amendatnri nrt, I ., 'amending so tlons of that act and the Carey law n t nre held h the in ijorlty pBlfl In be llld one nf the nincndm. ntH H Temedlng the defect of the original net. Justice flnarles holds thi amendatory ' net Is Invalid bv the reason tint It tov- ! r ers more than one district. i The majority la down the ruin In J; Ithls language 'All tho provisions of ! ' Wthe net hac but one general object, iTruhJeet nnd purpose and that Is the ie. claimtlon and Irrigation or the desert dr nrld lands nf the Stale, therefnie It Is not In conflict with the sections of the State vonMltutlon referred to. |