Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-08

"And ior thetweuty seventh fiscal year-l For the
general fund, 8, i,6O0,l 90 . For the school fund,
Sl,lSo.00o. 5 For the interst AM sinking fund,
$3.50, ,OOO.'
SO the appropriations were made. and fund is in
the State treasury To pay the interest On these
coupons, as well IS the interest on the State
Capitol bonds or the interest any o. the bonds
provided for IN the special funds that were conSo
dated into that one fund under the name OF 90 The
Interest and Sinking Fund But /; j. said that
the Constitution provides that money shall be
drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence Of an
appropriation made by law and upon Warrants duly
drawn therefor hv the Controller \ fuud sufficient
% pay these coupons was provided by the law of
1861. The L glslaturC mas uOt assumed 90 repeal
that law, and ;b6Te was constitutional inhil ton
at that time 20 the making of that appropriation,
aud the appropriation having been made, it cannot
low be withdrawn by lmpies' ion. These coupons
we're issued aod circulated eommer1id d pSPer upon
the faith O that Act, and in tho hands Of lnuccent
parties Will be enforced. The effect Of withdrawing
the appropriation, even by express legislation,
would be 60 impair the obg alton of that contract,
and DO not think that could be done, hut If il
could, i, could not be done by implication and /
think the appropriation Is preserved, under the
name Of The Int rest and Sinking Fund" An ap-
propria ion then made by that ACT ami has been
continued and IL is an apprul ration made by law.
Now, while it may be conceded that the LcgiSa-
ture or Constitutional Convention could r,qUire
warrant 70 be drawn by the Controller, and that the
Controller should identify these coupons when they
are brought % him yet il fact genuine coupon
is presented 10 him by its owner, lt would be his
duty 10 draw MS warrant, II seems IL under
shat statute ! believe, then, that there is fuEd
to be drawn on, and think also hat t Is the duty
% the Controller to draw his warrant on that fund
il the Stste is bound 70 pay these coupons
That involves q consideration Of the matters set
ny in the answer. The dcfeuse is that the railroad
mp1ny DID not comply with the conditions ot its
contract and it is Ssary TO read the pr0 ions
upon that subject to determine that question. he
fourth section, authorizing the bonds 30 o.. issued
and pledg'ng the State Tor the redemption OF the
coupons, provides:
"'The said grant to said company is nale upon
the express coalition and consideration tA.t SAID
company shall and do at all times When required,
from and after the passage ~ this Act transport
and convey over their sid railroad all public mes
seugerS couylcts going 10 the STATE Prison luatics
going 10 tbe S,atC Insane Asylum materials for the
Construction Of the Ststo Capitol building articles
iutc; deG for public exhibitions 81 the fairs pf the
state Agricultural ) Cic.y and in cas % var iuya-
also transport and convey their said railroad
all troops and munitions Of helougiu. go the
State OF Caliiurui- free Of cEare, Gus without any
other compensation than as herein provided. and
shall ais construct and zip, in running order 90
the rat- Of not LEES than tgeBty cutve miles Of
their said railroad each year hereafter iucU Udiuy
that portion of said railroad NOW partially cow-
p,ettd. until the same Is fully completed and
equipped, and ,nall also, within riuety days from
the passa e Of this Act file in the office Of the Sec
retlry Of state contract agreement duly signed
by the President and Syc1,try Of said Company,
and sealed with the corporate seal there f. therein
and thereby agreeing 10 faithfully DO aud perform
and fully con ply on the part ot said cympWy with
all the terms and conditions set forth Ia this
tiOn ."
Now, within ninety days after the passage Of this
Act, 1t was the duty Of the railroad company 20 file
the agreement, or contract, with the Secretary Of
State as here provided II is ayerT,d ia the petit
ton and admitted in the answer here that the bonds
were Issued iH accordance with this Act It may
be inferred, Therefore, that that contract was exc
cutcd and filed. IL is NOT set up ia the pltadiugs,
but rs the Legislature, late Is11-luI the
Legislature rcprescu's tho State-reclguizei the
obligation O. pay the coupons, II must necessarily
be assumed that the contract aud its Obligations up
to that time, had been performed. The Legislature
made provision for fund TO pay the coupons.
That was a legislative declaration that there had
nothing been done omitted 90 bc done by the
poration which would relieve the state from paying
the coupons Ii was the duty Of the Legislature
that time IT, have stated that, to this railroad
fund, they would refuse to make an appropriation,
because there had been yIolatOu uf the contract
il the contract haj been violated Upon that point
therefore thi.k 1t sufficiently sppoars that the
railroad conpsay mas complied " ItH lis agreement.
might rcmsrk IN this connect on t1at 800 the sc
If the People against Pachtuu the contract was SIT
up in the peadngs and il was ayerrtd that the
conditions had been performed far could be.
That contract was acted upon by the supreme Court
OF this state IN shat clse. 10 Was tU tler provided
in that Cout~a,t that the company To make
conveyance &c the STATE If HaIf section of land
when it got patent t. the land from the United
Sites. OF course If It never got the patent from
the United STATS it made no agreement Ga convey.
The answer sets up that il conveyed only part of
that land and that the other part was not CON
veyed because there was somebody i'm possession
and the company never got patent for il think
tIat would not be violation OF the contract.
! have already read from Section that the stat
ute provided what the company should do. That
same elton then cone udes:
"And in case sid company shall fail and refuse to
do and perform the said conditions and the said
agreement on their part the said company shall be
liable 10 repay 20 the state the amount which shall
have been paid by the State under this Act"
There are two views, then, in which this may be
regarded. These coupons were negotiable paper ,
and when they issued they went into the
hsnds OF innocent parties, upon the faith ii the Act
Of tie Legislature that they would be redeemed at
the State treasury That very question, in the out
set, considered in the Of the People against
PaCheCO, by the supreme Court # this State In
that case the people attempted % get an Injunction
against the issuing Of these coupons and the lssU-
ing Of the bonds That case tried IN .hr Sixth
judicial District Court in tits county. That Court
decided that, as war existed at the time. the State
m ,ght make contract Of this kind with the raroad
company, AID that the railroad company was en-
titled 20 have the bonds issued. The supreme
Court affirmed that iudgme Mt, and those bonds were
put upon the market commercial paper
1t has been stated by counsel for the defense that
county warrants are not commercial paper, and the
case OF Chrstv against Sullivan, in 50th California
is cited as authority Now, lt will be observed that
in that case there two warrants, each for
81 $50 which were intended to cover the services
performed by eX-Auditor W. a. Anderson during
two years in extending the lax roll. The
statute provided that Tor extending the
tax rolls he entitled TO $500 each
year. He then got s, 800 for what he entitled
to have only s., 900 \ warrant then issued for
$50 for that which the statute onl, authorized
a warrant to be drawn for $500. II is well-under.
stood principle Of law tGat the laws enter into and
form part Of every contract and that everyone is
presumed to know the law Now, the pr, sumption
was that sui ivan, when he took that assignment
and that Christy when he bought The warrants from
Sullivan, knew tnat AudCIsln. the Auditor, was only
entitled TO 81 600 These warrants were not u,got-
able because thair iuvaidity appeared their face
In the 9th Calf II ia it was held that was
one Of the me Ms Of get ing money ont Of the treas
ury but that It was not negotiable paper. But
this character Of bonds were executed for the pur
pose Of floating then upon the market, and in this
they differ from county warrants. they most
therefore, be controlled by the law merchant ana
taking that ,ilw Of it. even if the railroad company
did not comply wit7 tho terms Of this contract. :ho
State must pay and it mus rely upon the pro,is-
Of the fourth section of the Act for its remedy
which provides chat the company shall be liable to
paw back hat The ate b. id, If the company
does not perform the terms Of its contract.
Bus there is another view which may be taken Of
this case The services to performed by the rail-
road company are to be c3utiuuous-not on dur
iag the time that the Obligation TO ply the in 'erest
vas incurred foF the twenty years, while its
coupons were being paid-lut the company must
continue to perform services for all time and during
the existence Of the TpOrltinn, 10 must perform
the services upon being required by the State sU-
thoritie, which srs designated in the contract, for
the statute l. contract ThersfIIe, il seems 90
me- the payment ca the part Of the State is an indie
pendent and net a dspen eut promise; and then,
II the railroad company directly interested, it
would s'eu 70 ne thai he result would be the
same Now, to Illustrate : II seems 10 me that the
Stat i, t0uHu ny the SANE rule Of pleading and Coc
5 ruc-i of contracts au4 the same rules Of eyi-
deu-e that bind privste individuals. l do rot see
why IL Should NOT he do not sse why the
aggregate for corporate morals Of the State should
be any less than the individual morals Of the people
here is a case which illustrates my view
Of this 1t is the case Of Jutison VS.
B,wleu. AMI ia to be found in the ist Of
Wesby, Iurlstone aud G'rdOn at psge l62. There
Judsou, eminent surgeon and apJjhecary de.irCd
TO 90 out Of bUsincss. He tlok in Bowdeu as q
partner and sold u him part of his business. lie
agreed thst the partnership should continue from
the first day ui January, lS45, the frst day Of
January, 1916. Bowien wis to pay all eXpeI sss and
to receive all the revenue during that time and for
that Bowden was TO pay $500. After the first day
OF January, 1S46, Judson TO introduce B0wdan
as his successor iii business 70 all Of his pa,ient and
for that lie was TO receive $50 from Bowdeu. That
$50 was 10 be paid on the 25th Of March, 1916 The
$500 were not 10 be paid at one time eIO0
were to be pad down. and 500 were TO
be paid annually until the year lS49 The
plaintiff alleged that he had performed
the terms Of his cOntrat ted and that was denied
by the defendant who averred in his answer that lie
had requested plaintiff to introduce him to various
LIST day OF January, 1916, and tine 2jth day OF
and he refused to pay the money on that ground.
this language The introduction by the plaintiff
fNFf fha AnFa -ln1 = ssa-. asa e