Opinion of the Court.

was rendered thereon, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 38 U. S. App. 410. The defendant thereupon sued out the present writ of error, and a motion was now made to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. George H. Yeaman and Mr. Henry S. Monroe for the motion.

Mr. John M. Bowers opposing.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Of suits of a civil nature, at law or in equity, the Circuit Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, by reason of the citizenship of the parties, in cases between citizens of different States or between citizens of a State and aliens; and by reason of the cause of action, "in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority," including, of course, suits arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United States. Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1; 25 Stat. 433; Rev. Stat. § 629, cl. 9. In order to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction of a case as one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, that it does so arise must appear from the plaintiff's own statement of his claim. Colorado Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138; Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454; Oregon &c. Railway v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490; Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S. 273.

From final judgments of the Circuit Court in civil suits an appeal or writ of error lies to this court, or to the Circuit Court of Appeals. It lies directly to this court in any case in which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is in issue; and in such case the question of jurisdiction only is certified to and decided by this court. It also lies directly from the Circuit Court to this court in cases involving the construction or application of the Constitution, or the constitutionality of a law, or the validity or construction of a treaty, of the United States,

Opinion of the Court.

or in which the constitution or a law of a State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States; and in any of these cases the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not limited to the constitutional question, but extends to the determination of the whole case. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5; 26 Stat. 827, 828; Horner v. United States, 143 U. S. 570; Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499.

From final judgments of the Circuit Court in all other civil suits an appeal or writ of error lies to the Circuit Court of Appeals; and the judgments rendered thereon by the Circuit Court of Appeals are final (unless this court, by writ of certiorari or otherwise, orders the whole case to be brought up for its decision) in all cases in which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court "is dependent entirely upon the parties being aliens and citizens of the United States, or citizens of different States;" as well as in cases arising under the patent laws, or under the revenue laws. In all other civil actions (including those arising under the copyright laws of the United States), if the matter in controversy exceeds $1000, besides costs, there is, as of right, an appeal or writ of error to bring the case to this court. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6.

This plaintiff in error, having been defeated in the Circuit Court, did not bring the case directly to this court, as one involving the construction or application of the Constitution. of the United States, or upon any other of the grounds specified in section 5 of the act of 1891. But it took the case, under section 6, to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and having been again defeated in that court, now claims, as of right, a review by this court of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals being made final in all cases in which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is dependent entirely upon the parties being citizens of different States, but not final in cases arising under the copyright laws of the United States, where the matter in controversy exceeds $1000, the test of the appellate jurisdiction of this court over the case at bar is whether it was one arising under the copyright laws of the United States, or was one in which

Syllabus.

the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court wholly depended upon the parties being citizens of different States.

The complaint, alleging that the plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois and the defendant a citizen of New York, and claiming damages in a sum of more than $2000, showed that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the case by reason of the parties being citizens of different States. The plaintiff, in her complaint, did not claim any right under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or in any way mention or refer to that Constitution or to those laws; and, at the trial, she relied wholly upon a right given by the common law, and maintained her action upon such a right only. It was the defendant, and not the plaintiff, who invoked the Constitution and laws of the United States. This, as necessarily follows from the foregoing considerations, and as was expressly adjudged in Colorado Co. v. Turck, above cited, is insufficient to support the jurisdiction of this court to review, by appeal or writ of error, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court having been obtained and exercised solely because of the parties being citizens of different States, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was final, and the writ of error must be

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. BRADLEY,

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 355. Argued January 23, 24, 27, 1396. - Decided November 16, 1896.

In a suit, brought in a Circuit Court of the United States by an alien against a citizen of the State in which the court sits, claiming that an act about to be done therein by the defendant to the injury of the plaintiff, under authority of a statute of the State, will be in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and also in violation of the constitution of the State, the Federal courts have jurisdiction of both classes of questions; but, in exercising that jurisdiction as to questions arising

Syllabus.

under the state constitution, it is their duty to be guided by and follow the decisions of the highest court of the State; (1), as to the construction of the statute; and (2), as to whether, if so construed, it violates any provision of that constitution. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, shown to be in harmony with this decision..

The statute of California of March 7, 1887, to provide for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition of water and other property, and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes, and the several acts amendatory thereof having been clearly and repeatedly decided by the highest court of that State not to be in violation of its constitution, this court will not hold to the contrary.

Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 104, cited and affirmed to the point that " whenever by the laws of a State or by state authority a tax, assessment, servitude or other burden is imposed upon property for the public use, whether it be for the whole State or of some more limited portion of the community, and those laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge thus imposed, in the ordinary courts of justice, with such notice to the person, or such proceeding in regard to the property as is appropriate to the nature of the case, the judgment in such proceedings cannot be said to deprive the owner of his property without due process of law, however obnoxious it may be to other objections."

There is no specific prohibition in the Federal Constitution which acts upon the States in regard to their taking private property for any but a public use.

What is a public use, for which private property may be taken by due process of law, depends upon the particular facts and circumstances connected with the particular subject-matter.

The irrigation of really arid lands is a public purpose, and the water thus used is put to a public use; and the statutes providing for such irrigation are valid exercises of legislative power.

The land which can be properly included in any irrigation district under the statutes of California is sufficiently limited to arid, unproductive land by the provisions of the acts.

Due process of law is furnished, and equal protection of the law given in such proceedings, when the course pursued for the assessment and collection of taxes is that customarily followed in the State, and when the party who may be charged in his property has an opportunity to be heard.

The irrigation acts make proper provisions for a hearing as to whether the petitioners are of the class mentioned or described in them; whether they have complied with the statutory provisions; and whether their lands will be benefited by the proposed improvement. They make it the duty of the board of supervisors, when landowners deny that the signers of a petition have fulfilled the requirements of law, to give a hearing or hearings on that point. They provide for due notice of the proposed VOL. CLXIV-8

Statement of the Case.

presentation of a petition; and that the irrigation districts when created in the manner provided are to be public corporations with fixed boundaries. They provide for a general scheme of assessment upon the property included within each district, and they give an opportunity to the taxpayer to be heard upon the questions of benefit, valuation and assessment; and the question as to the mode of reaching the results, even if in some cases the results are inequitable, does not reach to the level of a Federal constitutional problem. In all these respects the statutes furnish due process of law, within the meaning of that term as used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

THIS was an appeal from the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of California. The case is reported in 68 Fed. Rep. 948. The action was commenced in that court by defendants in error, the plaintiffs below, for the purpose of procuring an injunction restraining defendant Tomlins, the collector of the irrigation district, from giving a deed to it of the premises belonging to plaintiff, Mrs. Bradley, based on a sale of her land made by the collector for the non-payment of a certain assessment upon such lands under the act incorporating the irrigation district, and to set aside such assessment, and for other relief.

The following, among other facts, were set up in the plaintiffs' second amended bill in equity: The plaintiffs are aliens and subjects of Great Britain, residing in San Diego County, California. The irrigation district is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of California, and doing business at Fallbrook, San Diego County. Matthew Tomlins was the collector of the corporation at the time of the commencement of the suit, and it has been doing business as and claims to be a corporation under "An act providing for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition of water and other property, and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes," approved March 7, 1887, as such act has been since amended.

The original act, which is commonly known as the Wright Act, and was so cited by counsel in their arguments, was enacted on the 7th of March, 1887, and will be found in the laws of California, at page 29. It contained 47 sections.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 were amended by an act of March 20,