Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-10-20
CITY FAX CASES,
Argument in Behalf Of Defendants Re-
sisting the Tax Levy.

CITY FAX CASES.
Argument in Behalf of Defendants Re-
sisting the Tax Levy.
In the Superior Court yesterday. Judge
Denaon presiding, the hearing Of the srgu-
ment on demurrer in the case Of the People
vs. Rigney was resumed. 1t is an action
brought by the direction Of the city authori-
ties, in the name of the people of the State,
to recover delinquent city taxes, and is one
of number of similar cases. A synopsis of
the argument made in behalf of the city has
already teen given in the REcoRD-UNIoN
J. w. Armstrong, one of the counsel for
the defendant, addressed the Court yester-
day. He directed bis argument to the two
leading points 10 the case First-That it
10 not within the power of the Legislature to
authorize the State TO bring actions for the
city to collect delinquent municipal taxes.
Second-That the tax which can be levied
and collected for city purposes uader the
charter is limited to l per cent, and there
fore levy of per cent. is illegal and void.
Inc city charter was passed under the
old Constitution, and was not re-
pesled By the new. Section 80 of
Ac.icle w. of the cid Constitution gave to
all corporations 50 the right to sue" and pro-
vided that they 81 shall be subject to be sued
in all Courts, in like cases as natural per-
sons" The right of the city then corpora
tion-eo sue was guaranteed by the Constitu-
ton, and the Legislature cannot take away
that right in any matter in which the cor
poration is interested. Section 81 of the
same article Of the Constitution provided:
Corporations may be formed under general
laws, but shall not be created by special Act,
except for municipal purposes. All general
laws and special Acts passed pursuant to
this section may be altered from time to
time, or repealed" The special Act incor-
porating the city of Sacramento was passed
in 1868. when the old Constitution was in
force. The original charter gave the city
power to sue in its own Eame to
collect delinquent tsxes, ard in 1864 an
amendment was passed by the Legislature
to au thorZe such suits to be brought in the
name of the people of the state. This amend
nent, however, was void, being in conflict
with the constitutional provision referred to.
The people have right 20 rely on every con-
stitutional guarantee, and the Legislature
has no power TO take from them any such
guarantee. Tie same argument applies with
equal force agaiast Section 80 of the Revenue
Act of 1861. The forty-ninth section of the
charter made that Act applicable to the levy
anu COieCGlOH Oh municipal LAKES pub IL was
not regarded SO authorizing suits to be
brought il ths name Of the people. and ali
suits ior the collection OF taxss were broughs
in the name Of the city until the Act Of 1864.
Municipal corporations are the basis of re-
sistaace to Tyranny, aud have been since the
time OF Clovis, and their rights and powers
must be clearly defined. In the case of the
People against Lynch the Supreme Court of
California hsli that the Courts are never
AL
tons, and this rule is quite generally laid
down it the other States and especially has
iG been applied when those constitutional
questions directly affected the rights of the
people. Even if it was intended by the city
charter to authorize delinquent tax actions to
be brought in the name of the people, il was
not within tie power of the Legislature to
take from the city its right to sue in its own
name--a right guaranteed by the Constitu-
ton. The city chsrte1being public statute,
was not repealed by the provision of the
code rsp5 aling all inconsistent and private
statutes. The code also provides that all
actions shall be brought in the name of the
real party in interest, except in certain CAGES,
among which actions for the collection of
revenue are not included. The State certain
ly has no interest in the city taxes, and
cannot therefore in any sense be the real
party in interest. The right to sue cannot
be vested in both State and city. One or the
other must have the right. The second point
is the main proposition in this case. L is
provided by the Constitution that all laws
shall embrace but one object, and that object
shall be expressed 10 the title. Il also pro-
vides that no amendment shall be made to e
law by reference to the title, but the Act re
vised or section amended must be re-enacted
ard set forth at length. The city charter of
April %, 1868. provides: The Board OF
Trustees shall not have power, except as
hereinafter provided. to levy any further or
greater tax annually for municipal purposes
than ole dollar On every one hundred
dollars of real ard personal property
within the limits Of the City Of Sacramento,
| except ouch as is exempt by law" Section
80 Of the charter provides for the levy of
spscial tax for bond redemption, AMI it is
provided that the money raised by this tax
shall go into separate fcnd and be applied
to special purpo:e. Every statute which has
sncs bsen passed, that is cisimed 80 repeal
these sections Of the charter, do so only By i'm
plication. The city charter, like shy other
lsT, can Culy be revised or amended as p:o-
yided by the Constitution, and every attempt
that hiss been made to revive or amend the
chGre-, without re enactiug the Act the
section sought to 5s amended in full, is void
under the Constitution. This provision
of she Constitution is mandatory, aud not
directory. Ia almost all OF the States whose
Constitutions contain fiLnilar provision,
he Courts have held that Acts rot passed in
conformity with that provision are OF 10
force, and that the original Act or section
C 'Riauts to exist. Judge Cooley, il is true,
| lays Gowa She rule that statutes msy be
amended by implication, but his position is
not sustained except By one CO G, and in de.
cisious rendered by him subs lens TO the
publication Of his work, he held to the con-
trcry doctrine while on tie beech. In some
of the States it has even bsen held that the
amended statuts AID ,he amending laa must
both be published Ia full. The statutes relied
on in ttis case to authorize the additional tax
ii ia claimed amend sections Of the city char. er
by iUp.ication. Ii the amending statutes al
valid the original sections rspea / !; if not,
they remain IN full force, for the original Sec
TORS and the amendments cannot both stand.
Ii they are net amended the CT Y authoritit
hsve no power to levy a tax cor general pur-
| poses exceeding one per cent. If any part Of
| tax Is illegal toe whole is illegal therefore
| il all over enc per cent. is illegal the entire
| levy ID void. Another section of the charter
| provides that the Treasurer shall spportion
the funds, aud the basis for the apportion.
| ment Is one per cent. That section stands
unrepeaied also.
Judge benson took the Gaze under advise
ment, and gave time Tor the filing Of briefs.
IlEhShANDl5E IEBOhI. Nc
merchandise for Sacramento passed Ogden on
the 10th instant: For W. A. l. c. s. Hough.
ton, boxes and 4 cases blank books; Vein.
stock & Lubin, bundle paper bags. l case
suspenders; Henry Eokhardt. 2 cases shells !;
J. NJ. Wieimsan, barrel and box candy,
case iicorice Kirk, Geary & Co., 40 boxes
medicine, case and l box syringes, case
| potash; Whittier. Fuller & Co., cases pic
ture frames J. r. Watson, IL bundles Rus.
sia iron Adams, McNsill Co, case
canned fsh, Is boxes and packages tobacco;
G. w. Chesiey case cigars l.. Eikus &
Co 9 boxes hats, 8 boxes hosiery Huating.
ton, HopkiUs & Co., % kegs nails, boxes
saws Bakec Hsmilton, 8 cases hammers.
box brushes; A. a. Van VOORHEES, & Co, 3
cases saddlery hardware. l case leather John
L. Ssoll, l case saddlery hardware, l bale
| blankets; Wsterhouse & Lester, 10 bundles
wagon hubs; Mebius & Co, 10 boxes spice,
10 boxes baking powder August Hoffnsc,
| box effects; Standard Oil Company. 800 ca.es
oil; George B. kstzsustein, box books a.
Coolot bales tobacco.
RIVER STEAMERS .-The dispatch published