It appears, by reference to the act of March 10th, 1874, that the functions of the office of Superintendent of Irrigation were to be exercised in portions only of the county— that districts were to be created upon a request of a majority of the property-owners within the proposed districts—such districts to bear all the expenses, by water rates and by taxes levied upon the lands within the respective districts—and that at least one portion of the county, viz., the city of Los Angeles, was entirely exempted from the operation of the act. The superintendent may have been called a county officer— but he was not such in fact. He was an officer of a portion or portions only of the county, i. e., such portions only of the county as should be formed into irrigation districts. The act creating the office did not pretend that he was to be paid as a county officer from taxes levied upon the county at large; he was to be paid out of the water rates collected from persons supplied with water." Being an officer of districts only, his compensation should be limited to revenue derived from *61such districts. (The People ex rel. Long v. Townsend, 56 Cal. 683.)

Judgment affirmed.

Morrison, J., concurred.

I agree to the opinion of Mr. Justice Myrick. With respect to the other questions suggested by the record, I do not deem it advisable now to express any views in extenso. I desire to add, however, that even if the act “ to promote irrigation in the County of Los Angeles” could be construed as adding to the powers and governmental machinery of the County of Los Angeles, and the “ Superintendent of Irrigation” could be considered a county officer, still the two acts (“ To promote irrigation,” etc., and that of March 7th, 1878, “ For the relief of George C. Knox”) would, in my opinion, conflict with the provisions of the constitution of 1849, following: “ The legislature shall establish a system of county and town governments, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable throughout the State.” (Art. xi, § 4.) “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.” (Art. i, § 11.) “ Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State. All property in this State shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as directed by law; but Assessors and Collectors of town, county, and state taxes shall be elected by the qualified electors of the district, county, or town in which the property taxed for State, county, or town purposes is situated.” (Art. xi, § 13.)

Sharpstein, J., concurred in the affirmance of the judgment.

Thornton, J., dissented.

Ross, J., being disqualified, took no part in the decision.