Daily Los Angeles herald., 1883-08-19
OPINION.

These cases involve the validity Of the
license ordinance fixing rates Of license
tax for Los Angeles county, adopted by
the Board Of Supervisors on the 4th Of
June, 1888.
Counsel for defendants urge several
points against the constitutlonality Of
said ordinance, and Of the County Gov.
eminent Bill, as 1t is called. Only one
deserves attention. 1t is commended that
the ordinance is void because it provides
for license tax collector, and makes
the issuance of the license dependent
on his action, while the law does not
provide for such an officer. Article
XI., section ~, of the present Constitn-
ton Of the State is as follows: s'The
Legislature shall have no power to i'm
pose taxes upon counties, cities, towns or
other public or municipal corporations,
or upon the inhabitants or property
thereof, for county, city, town or other
municipal purposes, but may, by general
laws. vest in the corporate authorities
thereof the power to assess and collect
taxes for such purposes. In the case
Of the People vs. Martin, 60 Cal. 1853,
the Supreme Court Of this State, con
strung the above section Of the Consti.
tuition, say; "The power to impose such
taxes (licence tax) for such purposes, 10
our opinion, no longer remains with the
Legislature, but tho Constitution ex-
pressly gives it the power, by general
laws, to vest in the corporate au-
thorities Of the counties, cities,
towns or other public Or munich
pal corporations, the power TO assess
and collect taxes for those purposes
The taking Of the power to impose such
taxes from the Legislature and vestine
it in the local authorities Is but another
Of the many evidences to be found in
the new Constitution Of the intention Ia
bring matters of local concern home to
the people" III obedience to the Con.
stitutional mandate, the last Legislature
lStatutes of 1883, p. 30S) declared that
the Boards of Supervisors in their re.
spective counties had jurisdiction and
power to license, for purposes OF regu-
iation and revenue, all and every kind
Of business not prohibited by law, and
transacted or carried on in such county,
and all shows, exhibitions and lawful
games carried on therein; to fix the
rates of license tax upon the same and
provide for their collection Of the same
by suit or otherwise"
1t is clear that the Board Of Super
visors had the power to fix the rates o.
license tax and provide for its collection
No complaint is made as to the amount
Of license tax imposed; the question Of
high license is thus eliminated from
these cases. The defendants simply
contend that the Board had no power
to appoint o license tax collector
Without expressing any opinion as ia
the propriety or policy OF the Board Great
ing the office of license tax collector, the
Court reaches the conclusion that they
had the power SO to do. 1t is an estab
lished principle in the law Of corpora
lions that they may exercise all thu
| powers within the fair intent and pur
| pose Of their creation which are reason
ably proper to give effect to power,
| expressly granted. In doing this they
must have choice Of means adapted t.
ends, and are not to be confined to any
one mode of operation. The corporata
authority of the county, in exercising
the powers that the Constitution hal
expressly and exclusively lodged il
them, act by inherent right Of legisla
ton. The Legislature Of the State hat
the power under the old Constitution tt
impose license taxes and provide for tn,
collection thereof, and, if that bod,
thought fit. to select tax collector
The power which the Legislature theI
| possessed in this respect is now vestet
by the present Constitution in the cor
porate authority Of the county. It is al
unquestioned principle that where ,
power to do an act is conferred on {
corporate authority, in general terms
without being accompanied by any pre-
scribed mode OF exercising it. discre
tion a. to the manner in which thu
power shsll be used is necessarily vsste,
in the governing body.
| Itresults that the complaints herein
state a good cause of action, and TIL
demurrers are overruled. The defend
ants declining to answer, and electing Il
abide by their demurrer, Judgment i
hereby rendered against them.
SEPuLvEDA,
August IS, 1883. Judge.