Los Angeles daily herald., 1876-06-20
Joseph Huber.Jr City
Treasurer,

VS..
Joseph Hubert City
Treasurer.
This is an application for a writ of
mandate to compel the City Treasurer
of the City of Los Angeles to pay a
warrant drawn by the Board of Public
Works against the Cash Fund of the
city. This case was argued with
marked ability on both sides. The
Court has taken pains to eXamiue all
the authorities cited by counsel so as
to endeavor to render a proper decis-
ion in the action. AS the matter will
be appealed it will only be necessary
for me, in view of the Importance of
the case, to state succinctly the con-
clusions reached after careful inves-
tigation of the case.
The Legislature of the State of Cali
| fornla passed an Act ITO create a
Board of Public Works in and for the
City of Los Angeles" which Act was
approved April 8, 1876. The first Sec
tion of the Act provides that said
Board shall consist of three members,
whose power shall be, "lst.-To have
complete and exclusive control over,
and management of, the construction,
repairs and maintenance of all zanjas,
| dams, bridges, streets, sewers, alleys,
gas and gas works, water and water
works, public parks and buildings,
and all other public works, and every
thing pertaining thereto; 2d.-To have
| exclusive power to contract for the
construction and repairs of all public
works embraced within the provisions
of this Act, and complete control over
| the expenditure of all moneys expend-
ed for the purposes in this act contem-
plated; 3d.-To have full and complete
control over all the city affairs the
City Attorney alone excepted so far
as necessary to carry out the object of
/ the Act" The second section Of the
Act provides: "All power and control
over and management by the Mayor
and Council of each, every and all the
subjects enumerated in this Act, is
| hereby annulled, vacated and set
aside, and the same vested exclusively
in the Board of Public Works hereby
created and established.n Section Sd
of sthe Act provides that the term of
| office of the members of the Board
shall be three years, anu the Governor
is authorized to appoint the three, ,and
until the next municipal election they
hold office under said appointment.
| The Act provides also that at the first
municipal election one member shall
be elected, and at each annual munic-
ipal election subsequent to that of 1876
there shall be elected one member to
hold office for three years (Sec.5). The
| foregoing provisions are all that |
deem necessary to quote for the pur-
pose of determining the constitution
ality of the Act. | have diligently
sought In the books for a precedent
which would fully elucidate the ques-
tion at bar. | have failed to meet
with any Act III any of the States of
the Union which conferred so vast a
power upon any body within the linn
its of a municipal corporation, and
still left the pre-existing corporate au-
thority with its charter in existence.
1t is undoubtedly the settled law of
the land that unless the Constitution
otherwise provides the Legislature
has the authority to amend the char
ter of municipal corporation, enlarge
or diminish its powers, extend or limit
its boundaries, divide the same into
two or more, consolidate two or more
| into one, overru1e its action whenever
| it is deemed unwise, impolitic or un-
| just, and even abolish the municipal
ity altogether, in the legislative dis
cretion. In fact, with the exception
of certain constitutional limitations,