Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-04-27
TWO OPINIONS.
REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF
RECENT ACTS.
Acknowledgement johnson On the
Feeble-Minded and Mineral
Bureau Bills.

Attorney. General johnson has passed
upon the legality OF two of the appropria-
ton bills passed by the last Legislature
that of the Act providing means for the
purchase of site and the erection of a
Home for Feeble Minded Children. and
the one appropriating 100000 for the sup
port of the State Mining Bureau. In the
former case brief was filed with that Off
cial yesterday by Thomas H. Lame, OF
Santa Clara, attacking the legality of the
Act, and his points are met and combated
by the Attorney General, in the following
opinion
Hon. John p Dunn, Controller Of State DEAR
SIR: have heard arguments on the question
ofthe validity of the Act entitled IAN Act to
provide permanent site for the California
Home for the Care and Training of Feeble
Minded Children, to erect suitable buildings
thereon, and making an appropriation there
for, and herewith give you my conclusions on
the subject:
First-It was objected that there was more
than one Item OF appropriation, but this posi-
ton is not tenable. There is only one appropri-
alton, and the language of the Act. '.the pur-
chase price of said site shall not exceed 80 per
cent. of the sum OF money herein appropriated -
Cannot constitute two items of appropriation.
Second-It was objected that there were GER
tain defects and Irregularities in the proceed
1ngs while pending before the Legislature,
which are apparent from the journals, and
IN this way it is sought to impeach the
Act. After the Senate bill passed the
Assembly and message to that effect was
forwarded to the Senate, the Assembly requested
a return OF the bill, which was acceded TO by
Senate, and then the rules were suspended in
the Assembly and the bill reconsidered on mo-
tlon resulting in certain amendments, which it
IS claimed materially changed the character of
the bill. II is not satisfactorily shown to me
that the bill i'll its various stages did not prevail
by the necessary vote, or that any constitutional
provision regarding it has not been complied
with The Senate submitting to recall OF the
DILL and afterwards concurring in the amend
mentS OF the Assembly-th is merely matter
of procedure, and is not a violation of any con-
stitutional provision. At least l have a reason
able doubt as to any constitutional provision
being violated, and that is sufficient As tothe
Journals being admissible in the consideration
OF this question, cite sherman VS.. Storey 80
Cal 269 and coucurring opinion in railroad
tax cases, l3 Fed. Rep. 76S written by Judge
Sawyer, the last citing our statute on this SUP
ject.
Third-lt was objected that there was dele
CATION OF legislative power in that the Act says:
:" For the purpose of locating the site the Gov
ernor shall appoint two citizens to act with the
Board OF Trustees, who shall upon this question
have full power with the Board, etc.
:, II this was law affecting municipality, au-
thoriziDg site to be selected by certain persons
and which should be binding on the Common
Council (see People VS.. the Common Council of
Detroit. Is Mich. 22S), different question
would be presented but the law being for a
state purpose and providing for the erection of
State institution, do not see how it can be sue
cessfuliy attacked on the ground named at
least the onus is on the Directing party to show
that the law is unconstitutional beyond rea-
Sonable doubt, which has not been done.
am of the opinion therefore that the appro-
priation is available
G. A. JOHNSON, Attorney General