“ The Constitution of the United States does not use the term 'statute,' but it does employ the term 'law,' often regarded as an equivalent, to describe an exertion of legislative power. Thus it is declared that a bill presented in either house of Congress, if receiving prescribed favorable consideration, shall 'become a law,' article 1, § 7; that Congress may 'make all laws' necessary and proper for carrying into execution various enumerated powers, article 1, § 8, cl. ”

“ The court must consider the effect of the ordinance as applied. As the validity of the particular ordinance depends ordinarily upon special facts, [15] these must be examined whenever there is jurisdiction. Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282, 42 S.C.t. 106, 66 L. Ed. 239. Though no burdensome factual inquiry is involved, the controversy may often be of trifling significance, as in the case at bar. Thus, persuasive reasons existed why Congress should have denied, in 1925, review by writ of error in cases which involved only the validity of a municipal ordinance. ”

“ The rate had been fixed by ordinance when the plaintiff obtained the right to have water power supplied to its mill, but there was, as we construe the proofs, no engagement that that rate should continue indefinitely. The city may be under a duty to supply the power at a reasonable rate (see Millers v. Augusta, 63 Ga. 722) , but that question is not in this case. The plaintiff's objection is confined to the asserted impairment of a prior contract.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (with whom Mr. Justice HOLMES concurs) , dissenting.
I think that the writ of error should be dismissed. ”

“ It permitted review of any judgment of the Supreme Court of a territory or of the District of Columbia where 'is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the United States.' Thereafter that provision, as modified by the act creating the Court of Appeals for the District, February 9, 1893, c. ”

“ Justice Pitney again speaking for the entire court said, page 176 (36 S.C.t. 513) :
'The decision of the state court of last resort is conclusive upon the point that the ordinance under consideration is within the scope of the powers conferred by the state Legislature upon the city council of Little Rock. ”

“ Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co., No. 194, 275 U.S. 372, 48 S.C.t. 183, 72 L. Ed. 318, decided January 3, 1928. Although the evidence is often conflicting, findings of fact are not required. Compare Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. ”

“ Neither refers to New Mexico ex rel. McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 203 U.S. 38, 47, 48, 27 S.C.t. 1, 51 L. Ed. 78, or to Smoot v. Heyl, 227, U.S. 518, 522, 33 S.C.t. 336, 57 L. Ed. 621-the cases which had recently confirmed that ruling. There was obviously no intention to overrule these cases.
The only authority cited in support of the statement in the Goldsboro and Little Rock cases, Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 183, 24 L. Ed. 716, furnishes no basis for them. ”