Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/383

EEOLAMATION DIST. NO. 108 ». HAOAB. 86Ô �tax proportionate to the whole expense, and to the henefit which ivill remit from such works." Section 33. This certainly seems to reqaire an apportionment aecording-to benefits. But suppose it does not require the apportionment to be strietly in ail particulars in accordance with the benefits, then this point presents a question of constitutional law arising under the state constitution; and the decisions of the supreme court of the state upon such questions are conclusive upon this court when they do not trench upon aiiy of the rights protected by the constitution of the United States. Hawes v. Contra Costa Water Co. 5 Sawy. 287; Walker v. Stdte Harbor Co. 17 Wall. 650 ; Bailey v. Magwire, 22 Wall. 230 ; South Ot- tawa V. PerHns, 94 U. S. 260 ; State R. Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 675 ; Fairfield v. GaUatin Co. 100 U. S. 47. In Davidson v. New Orleans the supreme court says : "It is said that plaintiff's property had been previously assessed for the same purpose, and the assessment paid. If this be meant to deny the right of the state to tax or assess property twice for the same purpose, we know of no provision in the federal constitution •which forbids this, or which forhids unequal taxation by the States." Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 106. The ques- tion, then, resta upon the state constitution as construed by the highest court of the state, and those decisions are against the defendant. This very point seems to me to be determined in Hager v. Sup'rs of Yolo Co., (arising under this same act,) 47 Cal. 234-5 ; Burnett v. Mayor of Sacramento, 12 Cal. 76 ; Emery v. S. F. Cas. Co. 28 Cal. 345 ; and subsequent cases affirming it settle this question in this state. �The next point relates to impairing the obligation of a con- tract. I am unable to find any contract, either between the United States and Califomia, or the United States and her patentees or grantees, or between the State of California and purohasers from her, or grantees of the United States, the obligation of •which is impaired by the law authorizing the assessment in question. Nor do I think there is any contract found in the charter of the Eeclamation Distriôt, the obliga- tion of which could be impaired, within the meaning of the constitution, by reason of the fact that the: assassment was �v.4,no.5 — 24 ����