Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-04-25
NO SPECIAL. ELECTION.


EAe Supreme Court Refuse to Man
danus the Governor.
The Supreme Court yesterday rendered
lis decision in the case of application Of a.
T. Hatch for writ Of mandate to compel
the Governor to call . special election for
June 9th, for q vote OF the people upon tie
! Heath amendment 10 the Constitution,
chan ring the system of railroad taxation,
| and also concerning fruit tYeca and vines
! The mandate asked lor was refused, Nor
lisoa, Chief Justice, reading the decision
| and the other Justices c3ncurrinr. The
amendments Will not, therefore, be voted
upon until The next general election, in the
/ fall of 1856. The atil text Of tLe decision
| is as follows:
This is On application Cor q wit OF menda,nus
| TO compel the respondent, ~ Governor Of the
! state ut California, to sign approve and Guthcu-
tine ui hi, slate NJ It's recent s,-Siun providing
| for the submission 90 the people of ccIt1in
| amendments 20 sections one, eight ten and
| eleven OF Article Niii. of the Constitution of
| the state, and also to issue forthwith procia-
| nation as provided IN SAID measure. calling
! special election 10 be held Oh tie 9Th day OF
/ jHHe, iS3, submitting TO the people OF the state
! ior their approval the said proposed amend
! meulS. As We understood on tie argument the
! application ior The writ to compel the Governor
| 10 sign the proposed measure ur bill was
| abandoned, II being conceded tnat the Gov
| tr90E, IN the matter = s;sEiHS &Hd approving
/ biiis passed hy the Legislature ha, u discretion
! which cannot be controlled by the writ of
| mandate
! Section lu55 OF the. Code q Ci}i} Procedure,
| by rhich the issuance OF the writ is authorized
| provides THAT It may be issued - compel the
! performance Of an act which the law specially
cuJpiHS as dty resulting from an Office. trust
or station and the WIT cIh Issue ohly TO compel
tie performance OF all act or duty C.early
enjoMe3 By law. Draper vs. NotcWarc Cal.
| 27s.I
| Tie learned counsel Tor the defendant CON
tends that the duty. thn peri lfmanoc Of which
is sought To he enforced BY the WTit Ia this case
| i not imposed on the Governor either 10y the
Constitution or the law and it Is very clear that
| unless the Constitution or The law makes il the
| duty OF the Governor To issue u proclamation
| for m election, this CONT cannot compel him To
| do 50.
let MS first look at the Constitution Section
| J. Article XVIII, OF that Instrument provides
| that amy amendment or amendments 10 this
Constitution may be proposed III the senate or
( Assembly, and If tWO-yhtlijS OF al the members
favor thereof suCh proposed amendment or
amendments shall be entered in Their journals,
| with the yeas aUd nays taken thereon and it
shdil pe the duty OF the LC1i@gtErs to submit
| sicA Proposed amendment or amendments to
the people in such inLuHar and at such times.
5ud after sgch publication, as unY he deemed
eHI cdieu,' 1t MI! Qe Tenid!E. t4at tho power
tGpiar3s2 in amendment to lac constitution is
| vested II the two Houses Senate and As-gWef,
-fnd If t"O-lhiTds of al the members elected
20 cGch @! tic Two Houses vote - favor thereof,
il shall be the duty OF the If9i,lGt.Qt so sui NIT
zur3i proposed gIne..GmCut OF amendments TO
i1C people - lC voted thcTCOn. The proposal of
/ .fC amendment O. amendments ), not 10y the
t'-lsiaturc. :> S}lelf, III the ordinary enactment
81 {. law, aud vi il Tie proposal the Governor
! Gaa nothing TO DO. HE a 7 is tLHt Of tvO-thirdS
o. each branch 81 the Legislature. Bot the
matter oi submitting the proposed Amendment
og @ncndmcats to;Ae .otco Tie people is cutie
different. That is 10 be done 10y the Lrgtsiq.urc
by ljly9 to that effect. and i'll the enactment Of
u law the Governor iS q pant Of the law making
power. As WAS said by the supreme Court of
the United States III the case of Mcmphi is vs.. u.
=, n L. :. 2+6-I, the Constitution I'd ms that
no bill shall become law uutii itshail have re-
ceived the approval OF the Governor or shall
have been otherwise passed under the prOyis-
ions OF the Constitution that is, as we uHder-
stand IT, over his refusal 10 agProre. The Erce7l-
ttG Is hta5 1dGc necessary constituent f tls lac
making p0tref.'
The foregoing decision was under a Constitu-
ton similar to ours On TIE point in question, BY
Section IL, Article ". OF our Const.tution it is
deciar that every bill which may have
passed the Legislature shall, hc!Cre il bee mes
law, he presented 10 he Governor II he ap-
pguvc il he9nui, sign il: but it not he shall re-
turn II with his objections to the House IN which
il originated. which shan enter such objections
upon the journal and proceed 60 reconsider it.
Ii any bill shall not be returned within
ten days after 1t shall have been rTaSe nted To
hin (Nundays eXceptcd), the sane s;i,lil become
. law IN Ike manner a5 il he had signed ii. UI-
..iIv tt G.si,IttiiiaiclI, i'!SNt !ltS
t..cf r.t.ti,i l." 'si" "a, u Sha-i ~. become u
a~ uI} s. The Governor. within ten days d'i2E
st!cf adjournment Sundays cyccptedl shall
sign and deposit he same III the Office of the
secretary OF state, il which case it shall become
law III tiSc manner as j. IL had been signed by
him before adjournment"
IN THIS instance the Legislature by adjourn
.ICut. prevented such return, and the Governor
did not sign and deposit the L.!i in the otGcc of
thc Secretary of state The learned counsel
ioc t!ie petitioner contends that it WAS intended
by the trainers Of the constitution tiat the same
power that could pr0pos the amendment cajld
prOYine for its Suhmiss. on tu the people 1t any
lime 1t saw it, and that il yer was intended
I7TGdt any one man CaIld thWHtt their Is IL. II
| such was The int nti0u the iduEgagr employed
! does not aptiy express such intention. bat, on
/ the contrary. the language used cX ruSSoS diff
| teTcut idea. vt the exp nSr OF repetition, we
! again say that the two houses of the Legislature
! propose the amendment Lut the time when
! such proposed amendment j. to le submitted
| TO the people is fixed by an Act % the Legisia-
| cure, and sEoh Act does not require the concur
! renee If tWO-thiyGS Of each branch %, hat body
| bUt does require the n prevail OF ille Governor
! after his approval or veto of the h.i 10 make it
q iitw. We do not iind in the Constitution any
| thing Whica imposes upon the Governor of the
state the duty to issue The proclamation for an
election, Hud II is not rOutcudcd that there is
! any law independent OF tic measure we have
| been considering which casts the duty upon
| him The time when the election is In be held
fiXlu; s,!ch time, ii follows hat proclamation
calling an election ON the 9Th day of june is not
81 duty resulting from al Office trust or s alton
winch the Goyernor can he required by writ or
naudaInus TO perform. The petition must
therefore, be denied, and il is So ordered