Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-05-22
IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Saturday the Supreme Court eat in bank
to hear two cases that are attracting much
attention. The first argued was the railroad
tax cases, in which is involved the validity
Of the act of the Board of Supervisors Of
Sacramento county in accepting the offer of
the Central Pacific Railroad and other rail-
road companies to pay about sixty per cent.
of the amount for which they were sued for
DELINQUENT taxes. The case came up on the
appeal taken by Attorney. General Hart from
the order of the Superior Court denying his
motion to vacate the judgment by consent,
and to set aside the satisfaction thereof. 1t
was argued by Acknowledgement Hart on
one side and Greed Raymond on the other.
The argument opened on motion
by Mr.. Raymond to dismiss the
appeal, he holding that there could
be no appeal from the judgment by consent.
The. argument occupied some four hours, and
involved the consideration of the power of
the Attorney. General to appear in the case,
and the right of county. when suing for
DELINQUENT taxes, to effect settlement of the
action or an offer to permit Judgment to be
entered for less than the amount sued for,
the delinquency being for both State and
county taxes. The points presented have al
ready been quite fully set forth in the
RECORD UNION in the report OF the case
when it was before the Superior Court of
this county. The Court took the case under
advisement. Mr.. Raymond was allowed
thirty days in which to file briefs and Mr..
Hart ten days in which to reply.
The second case was that of the People vs..
A. II. Chapman: Il is an action by the peo-
pie to recover back money alleged to have
been wrongfully drawn from the State Treas
ury by the State Prison Directors. Mr.. Hart
appeared for the people and Henry Edgerton
for the Directors. Mr.. Hart claimed that
the Act allowing the members first twenty
cents and then ten cents mileage and 500
per month, is unconstitutional Section 4,
Article X Constitution of California, says
the Directors shall be allowed reasonable
travelling and other expenses. The Ccnstitu-
ton plainly inhibits the payment of any sal
airy to the Directors. By the Act of 1880 the
Directors were allowed twenty cents mileage
the Act of 1881 made the milesge ten cents
and 500 month. The word reasonable"
limits and confines the sum to be paid, and
limits the section of the law also that at
tempts to allow more. Expenses were to be
allowed, and they must be reasonable.
They are not to be paid fees and
salary, and the Constitution was intended
to prevent exactly that thing. The accounts
are to be audited by an auditing Board,
and this is drawn from the Board of Di.
rectorq, which thus really makes the bills
and then audits them. MIR. Hart was fur
Their proceeding to point out that the
payment of q fixed sum as mileage, and a
fixed sum for "other expenses" is really
paying fees and salary, and is really de-
feating the express intent of the Constitu-
tion, that the Directors shall receive no
salary, when the Court stopped him and
asked Mr.. Edgerton what he had to say
in reply, and that gentleman said that he
over the matter, and that the Judicial de-
partment has nothing to do with it.
Chief Justice Morrison said he thought
counsel would not hold that the Courts could
not inquire ct least into the constitutionality
of the Act of the Legislature under which
the money is drawn.
Mr.. Edgerton said he would not question
that, SO far as that went, but the Legislature
has the power under the Constitution to fix
a uniform standard by which the auditing
Board is to be governed. That Board is to
standard, and to determine all the expenses
of the Board of Directors. Is it to be left
to the personal judgment of Directors as to
whether they shall travel in this or in that
manner? Whether one shall ride in fve.cent
street car. and another have hack at 81 30
to GO to his hotel? Or is it to be left to them
to say whether they shall stop at s. or 81
hotel2 Or are they to travel and live 10 the
cheapest manner, no matter what the per-
sonal inconvenience The twenty cents
mileage is uniform rule in California, and is
the standard for Sheriffs and witnesses, etc.
This is matter submitted to the discretion
of the Legislature, and it would be an intru-
sion for the Court to interfere with it. The
Legislature has the discretion given it, and
body has been set up to audit the expenses,
and they have been audited.
Chief Justice Morrison-You mean that
the Legislature may say that a Director shall
be paid 20 cents mile, although it may cost
him but cents mile?
Mr.. Edgerton-No. That may be taken
as a limitation on the amount to be allowed. |
1t is not to be assumed that the whole sum
has been allowed, nor is there anything in the |
record to show but what the whole sum was |
incurred. There is nothing to show but that |
the Auditing Board and the State Board of |
Examiners have found the actual expenses, |
according to the standard set up by the Legis- |
lature for travelling and other expense. Such |
Boards having determined what are reason. |
able travelling and other expenses, no review |
of that determination can be had.
Mr.. Hart replied that the Act takes away |
from the Auditing Board all discretion. Ex- |
penses are to be allowed. When the Legisla. |
ture steps beyond that and says given sum |
shall be paid, it exceeds its power.
The Court took the case under advisement, |
and allowed MIR. Edgerton twenty days to |
file brief and Mr.. Hart ten days to reply. |
The hearing of the case was very amusing. |
When it was stated, the Justices all began to |
smile, and after whispered consultation the |
Chief Justice said, 1--WE are all interested :" |
and another Justice added, "Thsy don't |
allow US any other expenses )? and another
said, mo, only our car fares )" and another
said, 1--WE have no hotel bills allowed |
to u.s. When it was suggested that one |
man might choose to ride in a |
hack and another in street car,
the Court replied, 'Tbat is the way they |
make this Court do" At another time the |
Court said, "This Court has had experience |
in this matter" and one of the Justices added, |
" We know just how it is" An old ex-mem-
Der of the Supreme Court arose and suggested |
as anaicus cure to the Court that it should |
not forget the value of ancient precedents in
the matter of which the Court had personal
knowledge. and then all the Justices for the
instant dropped the grave and reverend dig
nifty that enshrouds the Court, and smiled, |
jointly, everally and collectively. Through
out the hearing the Court manifested its |
interest, and to an outsider it was very ANUS
ing, and appeared as if the Justices who get
no "other expenses "iwere quite resolved to
put the bit on the chaps who do revel in