Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-02-14


the contractors to enable them to perform their con
tracts. 1t is said that several Of these claimant
have been compel ed to mortgage all their property
including their homesteads by reason of their in
ability to obtain the money which they had rieh
TO expect from the State Nor have these peopI
been negligent or careless OF their own interests 10
it appears that many Of the contractors and other
consulted eminent counsel before contracting O.
purchasing State warrants, and were uniforml,
advised that it would be safe to- trust the Stat,
under said law. II is stated and is probably fact
that the result of failure to recognize and pa,
these claims would bring upon many OF the claim
ants financial disaster and ruin Independently o
the legal questions involved can the State afford tc
reject these demands? Your committee do not pre-
tend to ed Just the amounts, il any, due to the re-
spectiye claimants, as that duty would necessarily
fall upon Ste State Board OF Examiners il the bill
under consideration should pass
II the saMe facts and equities existed in favor Of
any OF these claimants whose claim is juss and cor.
rect in amount against private person or corpor.
alton, he would, under the laws of the State have
RIGHT OF ACTION,
And could, asszrsdly, obtain judgment in Court
and enforce its collection The State is sovereign
and cannot be sued; and as cerolary TO this
proposition comes the maxim that the sover.
eign power can de no wrong Strict economy in The
administration of Se public affairs is necessary and
Just, and econo1rS in individual affairs is iist
and commendable but when economy goes SO. far
ss to deprive others of their just dues ucts in
Jury and distress upon connding innocence il de-
generates, and ceasiDgto be economy, becomes in
Justice and oppression. It was not to be expected
that every mar who put in bid for contract ad.
vertised to be let, OF who worked by the month
with his hands, could foresee that the Supreme
CJzrt would hold that the Act Of the Legislature
under which he was employed was in contraventior
Oh Some clause of the Constitution. The labo-er who
worked and the farmer or merchant who sold his
goods acted in good faith and had good reason to ex
peot pay, and his family bad the right to expect
bread the fruit of his toll Whatever amounts are
honestly due the respective claimants are debts of
honor due from the State, aud in the opinion Of
your committee should be honorably paid unless
assumption and payment by tire State. Although
the amount required seems large chat is no argu-
ment against the justice of the claim. 1t is small
to the State in comparison with the corresponding
loss to tie individual The tas.payer will scarcely
perceive the burden. while on che other hand many
families may be deprived of the neeessaries OF life
LEGALITY OF THE CLAIMS.
Your committee having fully considered the equi-
ties of these claimants, and having passed upon the
same to their entire satisfaction, With unanimous
therein were not unnsindful of the fact
that there great difficulties arising from the
decision of the Supreme Court Of this State adverse
to the constitutionGlity of the Act nder which the
work and services of the claimants had been ex-
pended-dificulties which confronted them in the
way Oh Il determination OF LlelT
to the bill referred to them. The decision of our
highest judicial tribunal in the Staterupon the con.
sttutionality of this drainage Act ia the case of
The People, appellants, Vs. Parks. ct al, respond
ents, was filed as early September 26, 1881 and
was published simultaneously through the press of
the State, and read with uncommon interest by
nearly all its intelligent taxpayers. II was then and
has since remained the general opinion of the people
that the decision in that case had terminated at
Il asst the legality of the Claims that remained unpaid
and outstanding against the State, arising out of
this Act, and that they we're declared by such de-
cIson to be unconstitutional and void. For Section
32 of Article " of the Constitution provides as fol-
Ows :" The Legislature shall have no power
10 pay, or TO authorize the payment of any claim
hereafter created against the State under any agree
ment or contract made without express authority of
aw; and all such unauthorized agreements or con-
tracts shall be null and void" Therefore, in the
of the committee, the claims under con-
;deratoD resting upon contracts made under an act
which was passed since the adoption OF present
were themselves transferred from the
eld Of equitable jurisdiction to The province of the
aw itself, and, being merged therein, were u be
ihally decided in great part if no. entirely By the
stern letter of the organic law Of the State.
1t is notable instance Of the fsllability of the
most enlightened human reason that one Of the
earned jurists in that Court disseated in toto from
the opinion end judgment OF the other eminent
Judges upon that bench as to the unconstitutional
ty Of this drainage s" Act, while the majority
themselves disagreed with each other in some i'm
ty concurring, however, in the general decision of
.he question. Such being the case it did not seem
10 your committee to be
A MATTER OF SPECIAL WONDER
That the claimants should have placed confidence in
.he Act framed br the Legislature and approved by
he Governor, acting under their oath of office, and
sworn to obey the Constitution governing all alike
md that these claimants should have hsZlrded their
abor and means under an Act having such ap-
'oiir eoil'ritee =saser.Sa if the riiS of oonotis
,ional construction which generally holds namely
that every act done uuder law is
10 initto veid and Of no legal forcs or effect IS f
IN absolute and universal application, without
my exception whatever, then Justice would,
in IN ny cases, become an unwilling sacrifice
20 public expediency. 1t. therefore, became
question in the minds of the committee
whether there might not be found in the
whole field OF constitutional construction some clear
exceptions to the general rule VIII eh has been so
ong formulated and followed, especially in the his
ory of American devatons from tine strict letter Of
he common law rule of decision.
For the purpose Of obtaining all possible light
lpon the legal aspects Of the case Of these claim
Ints, your committee propounded to the learned
ttorneys who pres ented these Gains before us in
Dehalf Of the Claimants and to the Attorney Gen
sfal of tae State, acting in behalf of the people
lie legal proposition in substance as follows
Whether the claimants are prot cted in their con-
,racts made and executed under the ''Act to pre-
md performed, prior to the deris.on of the Su-
Dreme Court declaring the Act Unconstitutional
iod whether the legislative Act itself was not an
" express authority 'f law sufficient to le2ahzs
The contracts made and performed under it. until
The adverse judicial determination of its const.tu-
tonsltY? Inc subject matter Of the legal question
involved in the proposition thus presented was
discussed before the committee at cons derabIe
ength by Colonel Flournoy and Ju 'ge benson, at.
torneYs for claimants, and subsequently brief OF
p iits and Authorities filed by the former with
the committee, which appears accompanying this
report, marked " Exhibit A, and made part hereof,
The press of official business at this time fal ing
upon The Attorney General precluded his making
an oral argument before the committee upon the
legal proposition submitted to him, but this officer
gave to the subject assduous care and attention
and after several days patient examination thereof,
filed with your committee his opinion fully sus-
tsini1g the legality OF tho claims under considers
tion, the opinion OF this officer being hereunto
attlcheS, marked Exhibit b." and made a palt
OF this report
Wherefore. in view of tie law as expounded to
US by the highest legal adviser and counselor of
the State settling the legality of these claims your
committee hereby recommend thatt the said Assem-
bly, bill No 20d do pass. GRANGER, Chairman.
EXHIBIT "A"-BsIEF OF CLAIMANTS.
The power of the Legislature to pass this bill, ap
proprating money OF the State to pay the claims re-
ferrei to in It, depends upon the construction to be
given the latter clause Of the thirty second para
graph OF the fourth article of the Constitution of
California.
Having expressed other limitations on the legisla-
tive power inhibiting compensation to "pubI
officers or agents, after the service has been reg
deree, or contract entered into and performed, in
whole or in part, the section proceeds to declare
q Nor to pay or to authorizes the payment of any
claim hereafter created against the State under any
agreement or contract made without express au-
thoTity cf law
The story Of legislation, not only in California
but generally in all the States before the adoption of
the above similar limitations the legislative
power, that az each session much time was occu-
pied in the consideration and large amounts ex.
pended In the ayuent of alleged equitable claims
against the S ate growing UP in variety of ways,
but chiefly through contracts of public officers Tor
repa s. improvements, tc., on public proaerty and
grounds, or in causing the work and labor to be
done and material furnished to be utilized Is often
allesed) in protecting public property. So ommon
had ibis custom become, and so exo bitant we're the
demands usually presented and paid the claims be-
log always gauged at speculative prices becau OF
the supposed risk the payment depending upon fu-
ture action OF the Legisature) thst it was wisely
termiuej to prevent the Legislature from making
to pay any claims based upon agree
meEts or contracts which the Legislature had rot
upon due consideration previously authorized
These matters referred to " illustrate the ~
sistent proptiety of The only possible reasonable
of Section 80 of Article ".
To hold that 1t means by " express authority of
law" ANYTHING more than legislative authorization,
would admit construction which would render the
administration OF the Government simply iElprac-
ticable.
The general principle enupcated by Judge Coo.