of the holders of title to lands susceptible of one mode of irrigation, etc. This petition is to be presented to the board of supervisors at a regular meeting, and notice of intended presentation must be published two weeks before the time at which it is to be presented. The board shall hear the same, shall establish and define the boundaries, although it cannot modify those described in the petition, so as to except from the district lands susceptible of irrigation by the same system of works applicable to the other lands in the proposed district; and the board cannot include in the district, even though included in the description in the petition, lands which shall not, in the judgment of the board, be benefited by irrigation by said system. If the board is to hear the petition upon notice, and is not to include land which will not, in its judgment, be benefited by irrigation by the system, we think it follows, as a necessary and a fair implication, that the persons interested in, or who may be affected by, the proposed improvement, have the right, under the notice, to appear before the board and contest the facts upon which the petition is based, and also the fact of benefit to any particular land included in the description of the proposed district. It is not an accurate construction of the statute to say that no opportunity is afforded the landowner to test the sufficiency of the petition in regard to the signers thereof, and in regard to the other conditions named in the act; nor is it correct to say that the power of the board of supervisors is, in terms, limited to making such changes in the boundaries proposed by the petitioners as it may deem proper, subject to the conditions named in the act. When the act speaks of a hearing of the petition, what is meant by it? Certainly it must extend to a hearing of the facts stated in the petition, and whether those who sign it are sufficient in number, and are among the class of persons mentioned in the act as alone having the right to sign the same. The obvious purpose of the publication of the notice of the intended presentation of the petition is to give those who are in any way interested in the proceeding an opportunity to appear before the board and be heard upon all the questions of fact, including the question of benefits to lands described in the petition. As there is to be a hearing before the board, and the board is not to include any lands which in its judgment will not be benefited, the plain construction of the act is that the hearing before the board includes the question as to the benefits of the lands, because that is one of the conditions upon which the final determination of the board is based; and the act cannot, in reason, be so construed as to provide that, while the board is to give a hearing on the petition, it must nevertheless decide in favor of the petitioners, and must establish and define the boundaries of the district, although the signers may not be 50, or a majority, of the holders of title, as provided by the act, and notwithstanding some other defect may become apparent upon the hearing. This provision that the board "shall establish and define such boundaries" (section 2) cannot reasonably or properly be held to mean that the boundaries must be established, notwithstanding any or all of the defects above mentioned have been proved upon the hearing. The language of the sections, taken together, plainly implies that the board is to establish and define the boundaries only in case the necessary facts appear up on the hearing which the act provides for. It cannot be supposed that the act, while providing for a hearing of the petition, yet, at the same time, commands the establishment and defining of the boundaries of a district, notwithstanding the fact that the hearing shows a failure on the part of the petitioners to comply with some or all of the conditions upon which the right to organize is placed by the same act. Such an absurdity cannot be imputed to the legislature. It cannot be doubted that, by the true construction of the act, the board of supervisors is not only entitled, but it is its duty, to entertain a contest by a landowner in respect to the question whether the signers of the petition fulfill the requirements described in the first section of the act; and,* if the board find in favor of the contestant upon that issue, it is the duty of the board, under the provisions of the statute, to deny the petition and dismiss the proceedings. Otherwise, what is the hearing for? And if, upon a hearing of the question of benefits to any lands described in the petition, it appears to the board that such lands will not be benefited, it is the duty of the board to so decide, and to exclude the lands from the district. The inclusion of any lands is therefore, in and of itself, a determination (after an opportunity for a hearing) that they will be benefited by the proposed irrigation. We have said that the supreme court of California has substantially dec.ded these questions in the same way. This appears, among others, in the case of Irrigation Dist. v. Tregea, above referred to. The court uses this language in that case: "The formation of irrigation districts is accomplished by proceedin,s so closely analogous to those prescribed for swamp lands and reclamation districts that the decisions with respect to the latter are authority as to the former; and we cite, as conclusive on this point, People v. Haar, 52 Cal. 181; Id., 66 Cal. 60, 4 Pac. 951; and many decisions to the same effect are cited by the briefs of counsel, but we deem it unnecessary to refer to them." In the case of People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171. 182, it was held that the board of supervisors, on presentation of the petition, was to hear and determine the question of jurisdiction. and whether the allegations of the petition were true. An approval and confirmation of the petition and the establishment of the district was held to be a conclusive judgment by the board that the lands mentioned and in question were swamp lands, that the petitioners held the proper evidences of title thereto, and that the lands would be benefited by the reclamation. These jurisdictional facts, it was held, must exist before the district could lawfully be established. The provision for a hearing in the irrigation act is similar, and the condition therein, that lands which, in the judgment of the board, are not benefited, shall not be included, renders the determination of the board, including them, after a hearing, a judgment that such lands will be benefited by the proposed plan of irrigation. The publication of a notice of the proposed presentation of the petition is a sufficient notification to those interested in the question, and gives them an opportunity to be heard before the board. Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U. S. 701, 4 Sup. Ct. 663; Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S. 316, 11 Sup. Ct. 825; Paulsen v. Portland, 149 U. S. 30, 13 Sup. Ct. 750. The formation of one of these irrigation districts amounts to the creation of a public corporation, and their officers are public officers. This has been held in the supreme court of California. In re Madera Irrigation Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 28 Pac. 272, 675; People v. Irrigation Dist., 98 Cal. 206, 32 Pac. 1047. There is nothing in the essential nature of such a corporation, so far as its creation only is concerned, which required notice to or hearing of the parties included therein, before it can be formed. It is created for a public purpose, and it rests in the discretion of the legislature when to create it, and with what powers to endow it. In the act under consideration, however, the establishment of its boundaries, and the purposes for which the district is created, if it be finally organized by reason of the approving vote of the people, will almost necessarily be followed by, and result in, an assessment upon all the lands included within the boundaries of the district. The legislature thus, in substance, provides for the creation, not alone of a public corporation, but of a taxing district, whose boundaries are fixed, not by the legislature, but, after a hearing, by the board of supervisors, subject to the final approval by the people in an election called for that purpose. It has been held in this court that the legislature has power to fix such a district for itself, without any hearing as to benefits, for the purpose of assessing upon the lands within the district the cost of a local public improvement. The legislature, when it fixes the district itself, is supposed to have made proper inquiry, and to have finally and conclusively determined the fact of benefits to the land included in the district, and the citizen has no constitutional right to any other or further hearing upon that question. The right which he thereafter has is to a hearing upon the question of what is termed the "apportionment of the tax," 1. e. the amount of the tax which he is to pay. Paulsen v. Portland, 149 U. S. 30-41, 13 Sup. Ct. 750-754. But when, as in this case, the determination of the question of what lands shall be included in the district is only to be decided after a decision as to what lands described in the petition will be benefited, and the decision of that question is submitted to some tribunal (the board of supervisors in this case), the parties whose lands are thus included in the petition are entitled to a hearing upon the question of benefits, and to have the lands excluded, if the judgment of the board be against their being benefited. Unless the legislature decide the question of benefits itself, the landowner has the right to be heard upon that question before his property can be taken. This, in substance, was determined by the decisions of this court in Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 356, 8 Sup. Ct. 921, 927, and Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 9 Sup. Ct. 192. Such a hearing upon notice is duly provided for in the act. Then, as to a hearing upon the question of apportionment, the act, in sections 18, 20, and 21, provides a general scheme for the assessment upon the property included in the district, and it also provides for a notice by publication of the making of such assessment; and an opportunity is given to the taxpayer to be heard upon the question of the valuation and assessment, and to make such objections thereto as he may think proper, and after that the assessors are to decide. Thus, the act provides for a hearing of the landowner both as to the question whether his land will be benefited by the proposed irrigation, and, when that has been decided in favor of the benefit, then upon the question of the valuation and assessment of and upon his land included in the district. As to other matters, the district can be created without notice to any one. Our conclusion is that the act, as construed, with reference to the objections considered under this third head, is unassailable. 4. The fourth objection, and also the objec tion above alluded to as the final one, may be discussed together," as they practically cover the same principle. It is insisted that the basis of the assessment upon the lands benefited, for the cost of the construction of the works, is not in accordance with and in proportion to the benefits conferred by the improvement, and therefore there is a violation of the constitutional amendment referred to, and a taking of the property of the citizen without due process of law. Although there is a marked distinction between an assessment for a local improvement and the levy of a general tax, yet the former is still the exercise of the same power as the latter, both having their source in the sovereign power of taxation. Whatever objec tions may be urged to this kind of an assessment, as being in violation of the state constitution, yet, as the state court has held them to be without force, we follow its judgment in that case, and our attention must be directed to the question whether any violation of the federal constitution is shown in such an assessment. Can an ad valorem assessment on the land benefited, or, in other words, can such ་ an assessment as is provided for in sections 18, 20, 21, and 22 of the act, be legally levied in such a case as this? Assume that the only theory of these assessments for local improvements upon which they can stand is that they | are imposed on account of the benefits received, and that no land ought, in justice, to be assessed for a greater sum than the benefits received by it; yet it is plain that the fact of the amount of benefits is not susceptible of that accurate determination which appertains to a demonstration in geometry. Some means of arriving at this amount must be used, and the same method may be more or less accurate in different cases involving different facts. Some choice is to be made, and, where the fact of some benefit accruing to all the lands has been legally found, can it be that the adoption of an ad valorem method of assessing the lands is to be held a violation of the federal constitution? It seems to us clearly not. It is one of those matters of detail in arriving at the proper and fair amount and proportion of the tax that is to be levied on the land with regard to the benefits it has received, which is open to the discretion of the state ¡legislature, and with which this court ought to have nothing to do. The way of arriving at the amount may be in some instances Inequitable and unequal, but that is far from rising to the level of a constitutional problem, and far from a case of taking property without due process of law. In the case of Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 106, the assessment, with which this court refused to interfere, was for a local improvement (reclaiming swamp lands); and by section 8 of the act of the legislature of Louisiana, passed in 1858 (Laws La. 1858, p. 114), such a uniform assessment was levied upon "the superficial or square foot of land situate within the draining section or district of such board" as would pay for the cost of construction. The effect of this provision was that each foot of land in the whole district paid the same sum as any other foot, although the assessment was founded upon the theory of an assessment for benefits. It was complained that the amount assessed upon plaintiff's lands was excessive, and that part of them received no benefit at all, and it was to that argument that the reply was made that it was a matter of detail, so far as this court was concerned, 1. e. it was not a constitutional question, and therefore was not reviewable here. In Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 9 Sup. Ct. 192, an assessment was laid upon lands for benefits received from construction of a local Improvement, according to the number of square feet owned by the landowner. It was urged that it was not an assessment governed by the amount of benefits received, but was an absolutely arbitrary aud illegal method of assessment. This court held the objection not well founded, and that the matter was for the decision of the legislature, to which body the discretion was committed of providing for payment of the improvement. We refer to the case of Cleveland v. Tripp, 13 R. I. 59, decided in 1880, as one which treats this subject with much ability. The act provided for the construction of a sewer in the city of Providence, and directed the laying of an assessment upon the abutting lands of a certain sum for each front foot, and another sum for each square foot extending back 150, feet. The claim was made that such a moder of assessment *did not apply the tax in pro-* portion to the benefits received, and was unequal and unfair, and therefore unconstitutional. The court, while admitting the complaint of inequality to be well founded, yet held the act to be within the power of the legislature. There are some states where assessments under such circumstances as here exist, and made upon an ad valorem basis, have been held invalid, as an infringement of some provision of the state constitution, or in violation of the act under which they were levied. Counsel have cited several such in the briefs herein filed. We do not discover, and our attention has not been called to, any case in this court where such an assessment has been held to violate any provision of the federal constitution. If it do not, this court can grant no relief. The method of assessment here provided for may not be the best which could have been adopted in order to accomplish the most equal and exact justice which the nature of the case permits. But, none the less, we are unable to say that it runs counter to any provision of the federal constitution, and we must for that reason hold the objection here considered to be untenable. An objection is also urged that it is delegating to others a legislative right,-that of the incorporating of public corporations,--inasmuch as the act vests in the supervisors and the people the right to say whether such a corporation shall be created; and it is said that the legislature cannot so delegate its power, and that any act performed by such a corporation, by means of which the property of the citizen is taken from him, either by the right of eminent domain or by assessment, results in taking such property without due process of law. We do not think there is any validity to the argument. The legislature delegates no power. It enacts conditions upon the performance of which the corporation shall be regarded as organized with the powers mentioned and described in the act. After careful scrutiny of the objections to this act, we are compelled to the conclusion that no one of such objections is well taken., The judgment appealed from herein is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of California for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Mr. Chief Justice FULLER and Mr. Justice FIELD dissent. 381 C64 U. S. 380) STONE v. UNITED STATES et al. (November 30, 1896.) COURT OF CLAIMS - FINDINGS OF FACT-RULE OF EVIDENCE. 1. The finding of the court of claims in an action at law determines all matters of fact, precisely as the verdict of a jury. 2 Recitals in a finding, that the claim in suit was supported by the testimony of but two witnesses, and that "the court is not satisfied by this evidence," followed by the statement, in the opinion, that the court "has no reason, other than the lapse of time and the inaction of the claimant, to discredit the witnesses or suspect the claim," do not justify a reversal, on the ground that the court attempted to create a rule of evidence as to the number of witnesses necessary to prove such a claim. Appeal from Court of Claims. On April 16, 1891, appellant, under authority of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. S51), filed his petition in the court of claims to recover the sum of $12,375 for certain property, to wit, two geldings, of the value of $500 each, and 91 head of horses, of the value of $125 each, alleged to have been taken or destroyed by the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians on November 17, 1867. A traverse having been filed, the case was submitted to the court upon the evidence. Certain findings of fact were made, the second of which is as follows: "The depredation was committed on the 17th November, 1867, near the town of Ft. Collins, in Larimer county, Colo., by the defendant Indians. The claimant never presented this claim to the department of the interior, nor to congress, nor to any officer or agent of the government, until his petition in this case was filed in this court on the 16th April, 1891. It is supported only by the testimony of the claimant himself and one witness. Since the claimant testi fied, he has filed his own ex parte affidavit, stating that the witness above referred to 'is the only person with whom I am acquainted who is familiar with the theft complained of,' and that, of 13 persons who followed the Indians at the time they took his horses, he does not know the whereabouts of any except the witness produced, and that he had used every endeavor to discover the other witnesses, but can secure no information except that they are dead. The court is not satisfied, by this evidence, as to the extent of the depredation or the value of the property." Upon this finding judgment was entered in favor of the defendants (29 Ct. Cl. 111), from which judgment the claimant appealed to this court. Charles A. Kiegwin and J. M. Wilson, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Howry, for appellees. Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court. *The findings of the court of claims in an❤ action at law determine all matters of fact, precisely as the verdict of a jury. 24 Stat. 505, §§ 2, 7; 26 Stat. 851, §§ 1, 4; Desmare v. U. S., 93 U. S. 605, 610; McClure v. U. S., 116 U. S. 145, 6 Sup. Ct. 321. That court finds that the claimant, upou whom rests the burden of proof, has not proved the extent of the depredation or the value of the property; and, there being thus a case of a failure of proof, judgment properly went against the party upon whom the burden rested. Counsel for appellant contend that the court of claims has attempted to create a rule of evidence as to the number of witnesses required in different classes of cases. Beyond the language of this finding, they call our attention to the opinion, in which, after a reference to the peculiar circumstances of this case, the court observes: "The court has no reason, in this particular case, other than the lapse of time and the inaction of the claimant, to discredit the witnesses or suspect the claim." We cannot so interpret the finding or the opinion. We do not understand that either lays down any arbitrary rule of evidence, as, for instance, that a claim 10 years old must be proved by at least two witnesses, one 20 years old by three witnesses, and so on. Such action would be legislative rather than judicial. The court simply refers, and properly, to the age of the claim, the failure to present it for such a length of time, and the meagerness of the testimony now offered to substantiate it. and then finds that such testimony, as to two essential facts in the claimant's case, to wit, the extent of the depredation and the amount of the loss, is not sufficient. It is true the court does not find that the witnesses have sworn falsely, but that is not essential, even when that is its belief. To say that the testimony is not satisfactory is more polite and less offensive, and at the same time equally sufficient. More than that, it is the very language of the statute (section 4): "But the claimant shall not have judgment for his claim, or for any part thereof, unless he shall establish the same by proof, satisfactory to the court." We do not mean to intimate that the court in this *case believed that the witnesses committed perjury. On the contrary, it may well be that it simply found the testimony so confused, so lacking in distinctness and precision, as to suggest a weakening of the memory through lapse of time, and, therefore, not the satisfactory proof required of these essential facts. We are not at liberty to refer to the opinion for the purpose of eking out, controlling, or modifying the scope of the findings. British Queen Min. Co. v. Baker Silver Min. Co.. 139 U. S. 222, 11 Sup. Ct. 523; Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71, 13 Sup. Ct. 481: Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U. S. 417, 14 Sup. Ct. 169. Neither is this a case like U. S. v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37. in which, in one finding, was stated the testimony, and, in another, the conclusion as to the ultimate fact, in which case the court held that it might consider the sufficiency of such testimony to establish that principal fact, for here the finding does not disclose the testimony, but only describes its character, and, without questioning its competency, simply declares its insufficiency. The judgment is affirmed. (164 U. S. 361) EDGINGTON v. UNITED STATES. (November 30, 1896.) STATUTES-REPEAL-CRIMINAL LAW-EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER-COMPETENCY-Sur- 1. Rev. St. § 5438, fixing a penalty for making or causing to be made any false deposition, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain payment or approval of any claim against the United States, was not repealed by Rev. St. 8 4746, providing a penalty for knowingly procuring the making or presentation of any false or fraudulent affidavit pertaining to any pension claim or other matter within the jurisdiction of the commissioner of pensions. 2. Evidence of the general reputation for truth of one accused of having made a false deposition is competent to establish a general character inconsistent with his guilt; and it is error to exclude such testimony, upon the theory that it should be offered only after the defendant has testified, to strengthen his testi mony. 3. The erroneous rejection of competent and material evidence is not cured by a suggestion by the court that the evidence, if offered later in the trial, may be admissible. 4. Evidence of the good character of the defendant in a criminal case may be considered, in connection with the other evidence, to create a reasonable doubt of his guilt. A charge to the effect that it can be considered only when the other evidence raises such a doubt is, therefore, erroneous. 5. An exception to "that part of the charge in stating the effect of good character," made to a paragraph of the charge which treats only of the proper effect of evidence of good character, is sufficient. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa. At the March term, 1895, in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of Iowa, Avington A. Edgington was tried and found guilty of the crime of making a false deposition, on April 13, 1894, in aid of a fraudulent pension claim on behalf of his mother, Jennie M. Edgington, claiming to be the widow of Francis M. Edgington. The indictment was based on section 5438 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and it was claimed, on behalf of the defendant, that that section had been repealed by the subsequent enactment of section 4746 of the Revised Statutes, and was no longer in force at the time the indictment was found. The motion to direct a verdict of not guilty for that reason was overruled, to which action of the court an exception was taken. Exceptions were also taken to the action of the court in excluding testimony as to the defendant's general reputation for truth and veracity, and to the instruction to the jury upon the testimony as to the good character of the defendant. On April 30, 1895, judgment was pronounced against the defendant that he pay a fine of $1,500 and the costs, and that he stand committed to jail until said fine and costs should be paid. A writ of error was prayed for and allowed. Smith McPherson, A. H. Garland, and R. C. Garland, for plaintiff in error. Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States. Mr. Justice SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court. Section 5438 of the Revised Statutes makes it penal to make or cause to be made, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain payment or approval of any claim against the United States, any false deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement; and such offense is made punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than one nor more than five years, or by fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000. The statute which was carried into this section of the Revised Statutes was enacted March 2, 1863. 12 Stat. 696. Section 4746 is based on a statute passed March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. 575), and provides a penalty of a fine not exceeding $500, or of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of both, for every person who knowingly or willfully in any wise procures the making or presentation of any false or fraudulent affidavit concerning any claim for pension, or payment thereof, or pertaining to any other matter within the jurisdiction of the commissioner of pensions. We are unable to accept the contention that the latter section is to be deemed a repeal of the former. Undoubtedly, there is some ground that is common to both. Thus, the procuring or causing to be made a false deposition or affidavit in promoting a fraudulent pension claim is made an offense by both statutes. But the earlier statute is wider in its scope, because not restricted to fraudulent pension claims, nor to merely procuring a false affidavit to be made. We think the offense charged in the present indictment, of making a false deposition in aid of a fraudulent pension claim, is properly within section 5438, and not within section 4746, which is in terms applicable only to the offense of procuring another person to commit the offense. We are constrained to sustain the assignments which complain of the exclusion of testimony offered to show defendant's general reputation for truth and veracity. It is not necessary to cite authorities to show that, in criminal prosecutions, the accused |