Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-10-14

| warrants There is not indeed any aspect
of the case which does not enforce the
obligation of the State to keep It's con-
tracts Loyalty, and which does not show
the position of the Attorney General to be
an untenable one. For example, there re-
mains in the Treasury the sum OF about
$50, 900, paid in to the Drainage Act Fund.
To draw upon that fund for any other pur-
pose than that for which it was deposited
would be unlawful If the Treasurer and
Controller should unite to dispose of this
money for any other purpose, they would
render themselves liable to impeachment
The Justification of this is transparently
obvious This money. was collected from
the people by taxation, for specific OBJ
ject, the levying OF tax to accomplish
which object had been authorized by the
peoples agents, the Legislature. But the
Legislature did not authorize this taxation
for any other than the one specified pur-
pose. and therefore to divert the funds to
any other use would be tantamount to rob.
bing the people.
And if the money already paid out under
the Drainage Act could be recovered, to
whom would it belong? It could no
more be diverted to another purpose
than can the money now in the Treasury.
1t belongs to the people, or, to be perfectly
exact, to the taxpayers, and if it is not
expended as it was meant to be expended
it ought TO be returned to those from whom
it was collected. But it would be impos.
ible SO to return it, and therefore it is clear
that Mr. Attorney. General has not the
possibility before him of repaying the tax
payers what they have contributed. But
ii the taxpayers cannot be recouped, what
becomes of Mr.. Attorney Generals theory
that the State ought to be reimbursed
Does he regard g the State as an entity
as tangible something separate and
apart from the people Does he believe
| that if A tthe People,, have been unlawfully
amerced, they can receive compensation by
means Of payments made to B (the State) I
This is mere juggling with words, and
confounding of names with things. The
State is neither more nor less than the PEG.
pie. And in this case the people have been
dealing with themselves, and Mr.. Attorney
General appears to wish to introduce to
all such dealings the Objectionable and
immoral principle that cheating is per-
Missile, or even OBLIGATORY.
There is no decent pretext for an at
tempt to recover these moneys The only
possible decent pretext would have been
claim that they had been obtained with
out valuable consideration. But no such
claim can be made. The money has been
expended in payment for honest hard
work, by which the State has proited in
the most evident way. Is the State to
receive benefits from its citizens, and then
to turn round and propose to swindle them
out OF the payment it had agreed to make
If an individual did this he would be stig-
matizsd as a scuryy rogue. Shall great
State be less careful of its honor and
good name than an individual? The
State, moreover, cannot plead the baby
act in a case of this kind. It is corpora
ton, and it is bound by The acts of its
authorized agents. When the Legislature
enacts law the people are justified in
assuming its validity until that validity
is challenged and tested in the Courts. In
this case Mr.. Attorney. General, who is
the law officer of the State, took no steps
to have the constitutionality of the Drain
age Act tested. It follows from this that
he must himself have believed it to be con-
stitutional for if he doubted its con-
stitutionality, yet suffered it to remain in
operation unchallengsd, he betrayed his
own trust. and in that case proposition
for his impeachment would be far more
defensible than that which he has made.
We do notof course think that Mr. Attor.
ney. General doubted the consttutionality
of the law. But the fact that he did rot
shows how fully the State is committed to
the maintenance of all the contracts entered
into under the law before it was declared
invalid. The State, through its legislative
and executive branches, commended the
Drainage Act to the people, 1t invited
contracts, accepted work, and paid for it.
1t is impossible to put everything back as it
was before the Act was passed. With due
Difference to Mr.. Attorney General that is
a nonsensical idea. In order to carry it
out the contractors who did the work would
have to be repaid the value of their labor,
or else a great injustice would result. The
plain truth is that it is necessary to hold
the past contracts 10 have been good, and
therefore whatever money is still in the
treasury to the credit of the Drainage
Fund ought to be held for the discharge of
the unliquiiated balance of the debts en-
tered into by the State in carrying out the
Act. This is all that should be done.
The Attorney. Generals proposition is alike
unworthy of that officer and of the State
he is supposed to represent.
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND POLICE BUSINESS
An old man living in San Francisco, and
following a fairly lucrative business, has
recently been arrested three times in sue
cesaion for indecent exposure of himself
Each time he has been taken before the
1