Show TEST LEGALITY OF E LA LAW Important Suit Begun in Supreme Supreme Su- Su Supreme Su Su- preme Court Cour to Fix FiX Status of Vital Statute S r- r r- r r. r c. HITS RECLAMATION WORK State Holds Up Applications for Mil Mu Million Milon Mi- Mi lion lon Dollars in Lans Loans to toA A Await wait Decision Jg constitutionality of or the lie Irrigation T THIS tion lon districts law a measure af affecting at- at g irrigation projects projects' throughout hout the lit state of or Utah and in involving in- in n- n ol ng millions of or dollars dollars' worth of ol proposed reclamation was placed oceil at Issue before the supreme su court of or the thesta sta state tc yesterday CS a a afternoon 1 through a asuit asuIt asuit suit brought for the lie purpose of or testing testIng test- test Ing In tho tIme vaU validity lt of or the lie act of or the Leg Leg- A 1 cloud was cast upon the time legality of ot the act lI by a recent decision of or tile the su supreme su- su preme court hol holding ln the drainage districts Ills Ills- nets law aw to be unconstitutional and andIn In lii order to decide this vital vial Issue In connection with wih the time Irrigation district measure suit stilt was brought direct In the time court yesterday by the time state or of Utah ex ox re ret Ici I. I John Lundberg r against the Green River irrigation district an and It Its directors for tor a writ of ot prohibition enjoining the time directors of the time district from selling tho the bonds which have e been Issued and ond to pay th limo tho interest t on which taxes have been levied upon property within the tho district This district in the section of or Uta Utah h is ole one cue of ot the thc largest in the tim state In some Instances the lie taxes have havo been paid Lun Lundberg ber brought suit to restrain the directors from rein selling eln the tho bonds on tho ground round that that hat his property was taxed to pay Interest on the bonds and the tIme law Jaw under which the bonds vez issued is Invalid aleJ The he legal egal phases s of ot the law Jaw were ar argued ar- ar gued suad before the thur tie court all U yesterday aY aft afternoon af af- af t Ur ly E E. EA A Wedgwood ed wood and J. J W. W N l for or Ol the defendant nt com coma company company pany and directors nn and Attorney W V H. H I. I Gregory for tOt the plaintiff Tho The case was submitted for tor or decision Of if Vital Ini Importance Few decisions co could coLl Ll be of more vital lal Import and amid wider wl el Interest In the lie state than the one to be handed down In lii this case and the tIme decision will be awaited wih with Whit deepest Interest b by those Interested Interest Interest- ed In irrigation and n reclamation projects eels Applications for loans of ot state monc money on the lie bonds of these Irrl irrigation ton districts amounting to nearly a n million dollars Johlars are pending before the lie state land hand board loarl which was advised by the sen general rul to hold up imp lp tho the loans until such time tulle as the tIme validity of or the law Jaw could be determined The first t doubt AS to the legality of or orthe the Lime act acl Cr was was raised when the supreme ourt court in the lie case of ot Benjamin Argyle an and ind others against Mont Johnson as of Utah rendered rendered an nn opinion hold holding Ins the drainage district aw ow unconstitutional This law like the tile Irrigation district law aw pro l provided ed that the majority of or prop prop- erty owners of oC a n district could form forni a levy cv taxes s upon the property tho the district and use thu money for the purpose of draining the tho district entre The llie court handed down an pinion opinion holding that the tlc lie operation of that ItI it the he law Jaw wa was las unconstitutional In the lie seizure of or property without hue due process of or law Jaw because o a persons person's person a within the tIme district could be bo I axed and ind sold for taxes axes If t the they were I nOl iol paid pal without ih proper I process O ess I |