873 . rBDBEAB EePORTEB, ,i �derived from other sources to reolaim those or any other lands. The several swamp-land cases already cited, arising Tmder the act in question, also decide that the legislature bas power to include lands held under Mexican grants in reclama- tion districts. �The point that, conceding the power of the legislature to include the lands of Hagar, held by him under a Mexican grant, in a district formed for the purpose of reclamation, still it did not in fact so include them by the act of 1868, or the provisions of the political code, in question, is distinctly decided against the defendant by the supreme court of the state in Hagar v. Sup'rs Yolo Co. 47 Cal. 223; People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 172. This being a construction of a statute of Cali- fornia by the highest court of the stàte,i8 oonclusive uponthis court. The last point, that the assessment is void beeause not made according to any rule 6f benefits, etc., bas alteady been considered under another head, and it is disposed of by the authorities already cited. See, particularly, Hagar v. Sup'rs Yoh Co. 47 Cal. 2a3-4; People y. Hagar, 52 Cal. 183; Davidson y. New Orleans, 6 Otto, 107. No othen point appears tp me to require special notice. Ail the questions presented in this (Jase, upon which there ever coald bave been gtounds for reasonable doubt, are> in my judgment, authoritati)?ely settled, either by decisions of the United States, supreme eourt or the supreme court Of the state of Califomia. �, There must be a decree for complainant, in pursnance of the prayer of the bill, and it is so ordered. Similar decree in the three other cases. ����
