Daily Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1876-1884, 1881-09-29
Gus Suselfs gerala.


An opinion in the case Of the
people W. Parks ct AL, better
knewn ~ the ''Slickens case" was
nled by the Supreme Court at q
late hour Monday afternoon. The
case was appealed from the Supe.
Fior Court OF Sacramento oou Dty,
and involved the constitutionality
Of the Act OF the Legislature emit.
tlod-"An Act to promote drainage"
passed April %, 1880, which is de-
clared to be unconstitutional be-
cause Il o0ntravenes Section "a of
Article ~. OF the Constitution, re-
curing that every Act shall en-
brace but one subject, which shall
be expressed in it's title. Judg-
ment Of the Court below is there
fore reversed.
The leading opinion is by Justice
Mckee, the Judgment being con.
CURED in by Chief Justice Morri-
son. Justice Ross writes concur
ring opinion In which Justice
Thornton concurs. Justices Myrick
and McKinstry each write concur
ring opinions and Justice Sharp
stein writes dissenting opinion.
Justice Mckee holds that there
is an essential difference between
the storage Of debris and the pro-
motion Of drainage. That both are
80 closely connected In the act that
they cannot be separated, while
necessarily the one has no connec-
ton with the other. That the Leg
islature has no power to impose
taxes for the benefit of individuals
In private enterprises, not even ii
such enterprises might remotely
benefit the public, and that only a
public object can be taxed by the
Legislature.
In his concurring opinion, Mr..
Justice Ross holds that the Legis-
lature delegated Its powers to the
Board OF Commissioners selected
TO carry out the provisions OF the
Act, which powers are not trans
ferable, and that such provisions
are within the judgment and dis
cretion OF the Commissioners. As
the District Board of Directors are.
under the Act, authorized to levy
. tax and assessment for q public
purpose at the same time upon
the same property, in addition to
the general tax levied by the State
on all property for the same pur-
pose, the, Act is invalid. That.a local
Board cannot be authorized to levy
local taxes for general public
purposes, because such power can
not be conferred upon a municipal
corporation.
Justice McKinstry holds that the
act provides for an unequal taxa
ton; that where q portion of an act
is good and q portion Is bad; and
that where the provisions are go
closely blended that the one clause
could not have been enacted with
out the other, the act Is necessarily
veid.
Justice Eharpstein, In his dis
senting opinion, holds that the act
Is constitutional as to the people OF
the State; that it can only be at
tackled by those affected by its pro.
visions, and that the Judgment OF
the Court below should be affirm.
ed. 1t is further held that "if all
those provisions of the act which
contemplates the raising Of funds
by taxing or assessing any Other
property than that of the entire
State should be held to be uncon.
stitutional, the Commissioners
could not be oustsd from Office, n OIL
epjoined from letting contracts, mol
in this action from levying a tax
within the district specified; and il
the act be unconstitutional to the
extent I think it to be, 1t Is quite
clear that the Court cannot mold
that the said district has not been
legally formed"
Justice Myrick disseuts from the
position taken by Justice Mckee,
that the act contraveDes Section "a
of Article Nv. OF the Constitution;
also from the conclusions Of Justice
Ross that the act is invalid because
the power cannot be conferred upon
municipal corporation, nor upon
aquasi municipal corporation.