Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/381

 EECLAMATIOS DI«T. NO. 108 ». HAGAK. 367 �4. Bamb — 8Ji3Ste~^&AitB~- GoîfTnACT!. — Edd, further, thàt the statuts authorizing the assessment in question did not violate the obligation of any contract between the United States and California, 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, or any contract found in the charter of the plaintif^. �6. Samb— Same— Samb— Same — Qovo Com.— Hdd, furtTier, that the en- thorizing the assessments to be coUected in gold coin did not impair the obligation of aiiy contract. LaneOo.-r Oregon,TW M. 73. �6. Samb—Same—Samb—" Incident Al Exfbnses."— Ife/d, further, that �attorney and counsel fees, in prosecuting suits for the recovery of such assessments, are " incidental expenses," within the meaning of the statute, to be paid out of the, funds raised, although such statute makes it the duty of the district attorneys to prosecute such actions. �7. Districts fob thb Reclamatiou of Bwamp Lands — State of Oal- �IFOBNIA— POWBE OF LEGISLATURE— SOUECB OF TiTLB TO LaNDS.— �The power of the legislature of the state of California to authorize the formation of districts fpr the reclamation of awamp lands within the state at the expenseof the lands so reclaimed, is not dependent, upon the source or channel through which the title to such lands came. �A. G. adamSt F. E. Baker, and W. B. TreadweU, for plaintiff. �W. G. Belcher and I. S. Belcher, for defendant. ; �■■' Sawyer, C. J. The first point made against the validity of these proceedings, and elaborately argued, is disposed of by the supreme court of the United States in Davidson v. N&w Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, in which it is held that "whenevefi, by the laws of a state or by state authority, a tax, assessment, servitude, or other burden is imposed upon property for ptib- lic uses, "whether it be for the whole state or of some more limited portion of the community, and thoae laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge thus imposed m the ordinary courts ûf justice, with such notice to the persoia, or Buch proceeding in regard to the property, as is approp*iatô to the nature of the case, the judgment in such proceeding cannot be said to deprive the owner of bis property wîthout due process of law, however obnoxious it may be to other objections. •. ♦ * It is not possible to hold thàt a party bas, without due process of law, been deprived of his property, wheîi, as regarda thô issues affe«ting it, he hasj by ����