Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-08-04
A QUESTION OF JusTI. E.
Can me State Invite Expenditure and
refuse the Citizen Remuneration?


he Act passed at the session of 1880 TO pro- |
note drainage. As to the justice Of these |
.laims there can be no reasonable doubt |
rhe scheme under whioh the Indebtedness
originated was conceived by the iegisla-
.ure, and no, by the persons who, unfortu-
lately and vnwittiagly, became its victims.
The Act which authorized the contracts
under which TIE work was done passed
with all the formalities essential TO give
it binding force as lew, and re-
ceived the solemn sanction of the
Governor then in power. The con-
tracts were let in accordance with
the requirements Of that Act of the Lesis-
lature. which then, at least, had the sane
ton of two departments of The Govern
ment, end parties dealing under il had the
opinions Of the Chief Executive and of the
Judiciary Committees of both branches of
the Legislature iii support of its constitu-
uCHality. 1t Is on J necessary for an hon
est seeker after the truth to cali to his rec
objection the history of the legislation upon
this subject to enable him to know that the
Governor and tie Legislature were both of
the opinion that the original Act was not
violative of ANY constitutional restriction.
The effort made at the session of the Iee-is-
lature which followed that of 1880 to re-
peal the Act was earnest and protracted
and the Importance attached to the mea s.
ures projected for that purpose is strong, if
not conclusive, evidence that The bitterest
enemies of the legislation had discovered
no grounds upon which to base very
strong hope for relief from the Constitution
by an appeal TO the Courts; and the malig-
nifty evinced in the editorial columns of the
Chronicle had not at that time been suffi-
GENTLY intense 10 sharpen the intellectual
perception of the astute editor of that Jour
nal TO such an extent as TO enable him to
observe the grounds of constitutional oh
lection upon which the " law " was subse-
quently defeated. 1t viii be remembered
by all who were present in the State at the
time, and who took any interest in public
affairs, that the apportiOnment of the State
commanded by the Constitution was
defeated on account of the severe
controversy which was carried on by
the friends and enemies of this Act. Vast
sums of the public money were expended
in Legislatures wrangles over its repeal, and
its enemies were SO severe that whispers
were heard in the regions of the Capitol OF
a refusal to pass am appropriation bill or
make tax levy until its repeal was accom-
after
column was published in the press of San
Francisco denouncing this legislation. but
no suggestion as to the unconstitutionalitv
of the law was made, or even limited at. until
about the close of that session. IL is
hardly probable that the enemies of the
law would have made so strenuous an
effort for its repeal, and for that purpose
would have expended so much money. if
at the time its unconstitutionality had been
plainly observable. The work which was
done underline Act, however, was all com
pleted before any man suggested that the
Constitution had been in any manner VIC
lated and when its validity was finally
challenged in the Courts, six of the Su
preme Judges wrote four opinions, deciding
upon different grounds against the VALIDITY
of the law while the seventh, Judge Sharp-
stein in very able opinion held the law
not 10 be obnoxious to any of the cOnsti-
tuuOnal objections made. These decisions
it must be remembered, were all rendered
after the work had been performed in mr.
suance OF the Act, and citizens, relying
upon the good faith of the State. had been
induced to eXpend their private fortunes in
carrying out the project thus adopted by
the Legislature.
1t is now asserted by the Chronicle that
the Act was so plainly unconstitutional
that even a tayman could discover IFS in
validity, and this assertion, which is a di-
rect atiIdhlt to one of the Supreme Judges
IS made % full view of the history of the
Act, concerning which no one is better in
formed than the editor of that Journal II
IS perhaps improper, when dealing with
gentlemen, to question their motives but
1t IS not improper to suggest that whatever
may be the ultimate purpose, the attitude
oil the Chro"'cte III attempting to defeat the
payment Of this Indebtedness, honestly in
CURED by the State and its employees. bv
suggestions which are untrue. is calculated
to arouse suspicion as to the ultimate
objects which it may have in view.
The contracts under this Act of the Ieg-
islature were all let to the lowest bidders
upon due notice given to the public. uDou
plans and specifications which were sinh
United to ali persons desiring 10 bid. The
work was inspected by the ate Engineer
and the District Engineer eau by them ac-
cepted and approved, and the accounts
finally allowed were submitted in itemized
form, and examined and approved by the
Directors who were appointed by Governor
Perkins. The claim of Mr.. Miller is for
work done by him under n contract let to
him, and at price which, whether the
claim is paid or not, has effectuallv bank
rupted him. And yet with what would
appear to be desperate merdacity the edi-
tor of the Chronicle has the hardihood To
speak Of the claim as being fraudulent.
This prating about fraudulent claims is
nonsenslcal demagogism, and its only an
parent object could be, if possible, to pre-
judice the case with the Supreme Court be-
fore it reaches that tribunal. 1t is to he
hoped that the Supreme Court will spurn
any such attempt. The time has not vet
arrived when the purity of the public press
would justify the submission of private
rights to its arbitrament. Every man un-
der our form of government ought to be
permitted to rest securely upon the assur-
ance that in tbs determination of the rights
of life, liberty and property, he will have
the law administered in the tribunals ere
ated by the Constitution for that purpose
and that even when he is seeking redress
from the government organized for his pro-
lection, his rights cannot be FILTERED away
by the venality and asperity of libelous
newspaper.
The question involved in the case is sim
ply one OF power. No one, not even the
Controller, denies the facts upon which the
claim rests. The question is whether or
not the State has power to act jointly with
its own subjects? 1t is a fundamental
principle, always applicable when private
rights between private individuals are re-
quired to be adjusted by the Courts, that
one for whom work has been done cannot
afterwards be permitted to retain the ben
efits of the labor and avoid payment there
for by challenging the validity of the con
tract under which the labor has been per
formed. This doctrine has been adopted
by government for the purpose of teaching
its citizens morality, and as between them
enforcing the rules of common honesty.
1t is claimed now that this rule Of honor
is not applicable to the State; that it re-
fuses to follow its own precepts. and that
its people have adopted for it a Constitu-
ton which prevents it from dealing fairly
with its own subjects. 1t is claimed that if
the State projects plan for the construc-
ton of a public work and induces its own
citizens to expend their private fortunes in
furtheTance of that project, that in its SOW
ereignty it can accept the benefits derived,
repudiate the debt which it induced the
citizens to incur and shield itself behind
that revered instrument, the Constitution,
when demand is made for reimbursement.
Such proposition is too plainly and I'M
questionably opposed to ali sense of right
and law to be for a moment entitled to con-
sideration, and much less to be seriously
proposed as o constitutional or equitable
principle which the Supreme Court is ex-
pected to adopt and promulgate as law in
this State
Why THE Swiss CAN DRINK So MUcH.-
Owing to the small proportion of moisture
IN mountain air and the low barometric
pressure, evaporation is very rapid. Even