ing of the constitution. But as such levee districts, or reclamation districts, are distinctly not private corporations, they are corporations in a class by themselves, and the general powers of the legislature for their creation, organization and control are in no wise limited by the constitution of the state." (See, also, Reclamation Dist. No. 551 v. County of Sacramento, 134 Cal. 478, [66 Pac. 668], and People ex rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage District, 155 Cal. 373, [103 Pac. 207].) In the last-mentioned case it is said:

"The act does no violence to article I, section 11, nor to article IV, section 25, nor to article XI, section 6, of the constitution of the state. That the district here organized, if it be considered a corporation at all, is not a corporation organized for municipal purposes within the contemplation of article XI, section 6, of the constitution, must be taken as well settled. (People v. Reclamation District 551, 117 Cal. 114, [48 Pac. 1016]; People v. Levee District No. 6, 131 Cal. 30, [63 Pac. 676]; Reclamation District v. County of Sacramento, 134 Cal. 477, [66 Pac. 668].) It is unnecessary to repeat the reasons set forth in the decisions in those cases by which the conclusion there reached was expressed, to the effect that such districts are, in strictness, not corporations at all, but rather governmental agencies to carry out a specific purpose the agency ceasing with the accomplishment of the purpose. But, additionally, it may be said that the likeness of these agencies to corporations is superficial, and that the similitude-for it is no more than this-ceases if consideration be paid to the fact that the state could accomplish this very work without organizing a district as such at all, and without giving the land owners within the district any voice in the selection of the managers or trustees. Thus it would be perfectly legal and competent for the legislature, delimiting a tract of land, itself to appoint a commissioner or commissioners to perform all of the functions which, under the existing schemes, are performed by the trustees and the as

sessors.

"Nor, while a special act, is the law obnoxious to the other sections of the constitution above cited. The considerations dictating the necessities of a special law are plain as above set forth. It would require a clear showing upon the face of the law itself that a special act was not required, before

a court would interfere with the determination of a coordinate branch of the government upon this subject, and, generally, as is said in People v. McFadden, 81 Cal. 489, [15 Am. St. Rep. 66, 22 Pac. 851], the determination of such a matter 'depends upon questions of fact which this court has no means of investigating, and upon the solution of which it would not attempt to substitute its judgment in place of that of the legislature." "

Nothing more can be said upon the point under consideration than is expressed in the foregoing authorities, which, it is clear, conclusively settle the proposition adversely to the claim of the appellant.

2. The proposition that the assessment is invalid because the act creating plaintiff embraced within the limits of the latter two reclamation districts existing at the time of the creation of plaintiff cannot be maintained. Counsel argue that the destruction of the two districts in the manner suggested must result in the taking of the property of the land owners within the old districts without due process of law. In reply to this argument, it is to be said that, even if the point were one which could be appropriately urged against the validity of the assessment in the case at bar, there is nothing in the record before us showing, or tending to show in the slightest degree, that the property of the land owners in the old districts has been taken without just compensation having been paid for it, or without due process of law, by the act of the legislature establishing the boundaries of plaintiff and authorizing its organization as a reclamation district.

But the point is one which the defendants cannot urge in this proceeding against the legality of the assessment. If the legislature has, by its act creating the plaintiff, trespassed upon or usurped any of the rights of other reclamation districts existing before and at the time of the establishment of the boundaries of plaintiff, the matter is one for the attorney general, upon the relation of some land owner of one or both of the old districts, to inquire into through appropriate legal proceedings. In other words, the point under consideration involves a collateral attack upon the legal existence of plaintiff, and such an attack is not within the right of the defendant in this case to interpose, for, if it be a fact

that plaintiff has no legal existence for the reason here suggested by appellants, it does not so appear from the face of the act creating plaintiff, and, therefore, such fact cannot, obviously, constitute a defense against the legality of the assessment. (People v. La Rue, 67 Cal. 526, [8 Pac. 84].) The act creating the plaintiff is, upon its face, in all respects, perfectly valid, and if facts extrinsic to the act itself may disclose the invalidity of the enactment and consequently the illegality of the district, an inquiry to that end, if there exists authority for any such inquiry, must be prosecuted directly against the district and not against any of the acts of its own officers or the other public officers who are charged with the administration of its affairs. It is well settled that the legality of reclamation districts and like quasi-public corporations or public agencies established for similar purposes cannot, in a suit to enforce an assessment for the purpose of their creation and organization, be challenged; or, in other words, their legality cannot be collaterally attacked. (Hoke v. Perdue, 62 Cal. 545; Reclamation Dist. v. Gray, 95 Cal. 601, [30 Pac. 779]; Swamp Land Dist. v. Silver, 98 Cal. 51, [32 Pac. 866]; Quint v. Hoffman, 103 Cal. 506, [37 Pac. 514, 777]; Reclamation Dist. v. Turner, 104 Cal. 334, [37 Pac. 1038].)

The act, by express language, repeals all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions, and, manifestly, if there existed at the time of its passage any law authorizing the maintenance of districts which were made a part of the district created by said act, such law was repealed, at least by necessary implication. The legislature is to be presumed to have known of the existence of such other districts, and to have considered and weighed all vital matters with respect to their operation and expenditures as such and the extent of their efficiency to accomplish, in full measure, the purposes for which they were created. There can be indulged no presumption that the effect of an act of the legislature, if enforced, will be to destroy vested rights or to take property without due process of law, where such effect is not made clear from the language of the act itself. That it is within the power of the legislature to repeal laws creating reclamation districts is a proposition well established. The swamp

and overflowed lands of California were granted by the general government to the state upon condition that the latter would reclaim the same so that they might become suitable for the purposes of cultivation, and those who become purchasers of such lands from the state so take them subject to the obligation to perform the same condition. (Kimball v. Reclamation Fund Com., 45 Cal. 344; Lamb v. Reclamation. Dist., 73 Cal. 133, [2 Am. St. Rep. 775, 14 Pac. 625]; County of Kings v. County of Tulare, 119 Cal. 509, [51 Pac. 866]; Miller & Lux v. Batz, 142 Cal. 447, [76 Pac. 42]; Reclamation Dist. v. County of Sacramento, 134 Cal. 477, [66 Pac. 668].) Therefore, the state may adopt any policy consistent with reason for the prosecution of the work of reclaiming such lands; for there is no limitation placed by the constitution upon the power of the legislature to change its policy with regard to this subject. As is said in People v. Reclamation Dist., 117 Cal. 114, [48 Pac. 1016], speaking of reclamation districts, "they are public agencies which would cease to exist when the policy of the state has changed, . . . and there is nothing in the constitution relating to municipal corporations which would prevent the state from so changing its policy as to put them out of existence." If, therefore, the legislature deems it to be a wise and beneficent policy, to the end that the state's obligation to reclaim and conserve the vast bodies of swamp and overflowed lands ceded to it by the general government, to put out of existence any particular reclamation district which it has created, or to combine two or more districts already in existence into one, or to form a new district embracing lands included within the boundaries of other existing districts, it must be conclusively presumed, in a collateral attack upon the legality of such new district so formed, that the law-making department has acted with due regard to the rights of the land owners of the old districts, and that, in fact, the latter act is in all respects legal and valid. In short, the policy of our schemes for the reclamation of swamp and overflowed lands is one for exclusive determination by the legislature, and, as before declared, if the acts of that body upon the subject are, upon their face, regular and valid, they cannot be impeached in any collateral proceeding.

3. It appears from the record that the owners of the land embraced in district 70, or those owning a majority in acreage of such land, in pursuance of section 3452 of the Political Code, adopted a set of by-laws for the government of the business of said district, and that subsequently the board of trustees amended said by-laws so as to change the time for holding the regular meetings of said board from the last Saturday in each month to the first Monday in each month; and further amended the by-laws with respect to the extent of the notice to be given the members of the board of trustees of special meetings of the board.

Section 3452 of the Political Code, supra, provides that the land owners of the district shall adopt by-laws for the government thereof, and that such by-laws "may be amended at any time in the same manner that the original by-laws were adopted."

It is not seriously contended that the effect of the mere unauthorized act of the board of trustees in amending or attempting to amend the by-laws is to vitiate the assessment; but appellants complain in this connection that the trial court committed prejudicial error by its alleged refusal to permit them to prove that the regular meetings of the board at which all the important business of the district committed to that body was transacted were held on the first Monday of each month, in accordance with the requirement of the amendment which the board undertook to make to the by-laws in that particular, instead of on the last Saturday of each month as prescribed by the by-laws, and, further, that the court would not permit proof as to the notice given, if any, to the members of the board of trustees of any special meetings at which the business of the board was transacted.

The rulings complained of were upon questions propounded by counsel for the appellants to the secretary of the board of trustees.

Directing his attention to the resolution adopted by the board purporting to change the regular meeting days of said board to the first Monday in each month, this witness was asked if said board had held its meetings "pursuant to" said resolution, and whether said board had "met upon any other day as a regular meeting than Monday as provided by this