Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1889-06-09
ORANGE COUNTY.
The Legality of the Act Argued II
Court.

OhhNuh
The Legality of the Aet Argued I'm
Court.
The question of the constitutioDality of
the Act of the Legislature creating the
new county of Orange, which was passed
in March last, was raised few weeks
ago, in a suit entitled The People of the
State of California upon the relation of
A. A. Graves vs.. w. McFadden, A. B.
Caldwell, j. w. Towner, j. X. Kellom
aud r. G. Wickham, which was brought
by the plaintiff to obtain judgment
against the defendants, who are the five
Commissioners appointed under the new
act to perfect the organization OF Orange
county, declaring their acts in this direc-
ton illegal.
This case came up for hearing yester-
| day morning before the Judges Of the
| Superior Court of Los Angeles county,
sitting in banc, in Department OF the
Superior Court. At 8 A. NJ. Judges
Cheney, Clark, Van Dyke, Wade, Shaw
and Mckinley occupied seats upon the
bench, and before them appeared Messrs.
Chapman, Hendricks. Gottschalk, and
Luckel, as counsel for the plaintiffs,
while the defendants we're represented
by Messrs. j. Victor Montgomery, Hutton,
Swanwick, and ]. w. Towner. The tables
in front of the bench were literally COW
cred with law books, from which the
learned counsel at frequent intervals
during their arguments, cited authorities
and points bearing on the question at
issue.
There was large attendance of spec
| 80 kI.
were members of the bar, who listened
TO the arguments with an intense inter-
est. The proceedings opened by the
plaintiffs being allowed, by consent OF
counsel, to amend their amended com
plant, and it was stipulated that the de.
murrer filed to the original complaint
should be allowed to stand as the demur-
rer to the amended complaint. The
complaint and the demurrer thereto
were then read by Judge Hutton. The
former document alleges that A. A.
Graves is citizen of the United States
and a resident taxpayer of Los Angeles
county; and amongst other things 1t
claims that the provisions of the Act OF
the Legislature creating the county OF
Orange are unconstitutional for the rea-
son that the Legislature attempted by
it to delegate to the electors OF
that district legislative powers which
we're accorded to the Commissioners. but
which should be vested in the Legisla.
ture alone. Touching briefly upon this
point, Mr.. Hutton contended that ii
there were no such officers as the Com
missioners, the people, being the real
parties to the act, could not question its
validity. He commended that the Com
missioners, being appointed by the Gov
ernor, were, practically, Government
agents, and that, therefore, the writ OF
quo uarraato was not the proper process
to be employed.
Mr.. Chapman then commenced his
argument, and for the next two hours
and half he interested his auditors with
his analyzation of the questions before
the Court, and his flow of eloquence
never ceased, except for few mo.
ments when searching for some authority
, He argued, first, that the provisions Of
!, the act creating the county of Orange
we're unconstitutional, for the reason
that the legislature attempted by it to
delegate to the electors of the district
legislative powers which alone are vested
in the legislature. The act was local
and special law, when the general law
, was applicable to the situation. Itwas q
violation of the constitution, which pro-
, vides that the legislature shall establish
system of county government, and il
a also violation of the provision that re.
quires that the legislature shall provide
for the election and appointment o.
county officers by general and uniform
I law. By this act the Governor was en-
powered to appoint five commissioners
to perfect the organization of the county
y | oil Of tah 10 sk,~ks
! officers now continue to exercise
their offices illegally. His next poin'
was that the act was direct violation O.
. the Constitution, which expressly pro
' hibits the LIE islature from creating cor
! porations for municipal purposes by
: means of special laws. He claimed tina
the act, being unconstitutional, confers
. no authority upon the Commissioners
, whatever, and, if the county be organ
lied under the provisions of the act, the
: amount of taxable property would be
greatly reduced in Los Angeles county
and the taxes of the county would be cor
1espondingly raised, a5 the Orange
County bill provides that a certain pro
> portion OF the property of Los Angeles
county shall be paid over in money to the
new county, should its assets exceed its
Liabilities, all of which is contrary to the
Constitution.
At this juncture recess was taken un
, til P. as some Of the judges wished
to attend the opening ceremonies of the
new cable road. On reconvening, Judge
{ Mckinley did not appear, but as counsel
+ did not offer any objection, the case pro-
ceeded, and few minutes later Mr.
, Chapman closed, and made way for Mr.
Hutton. In opening, he stated his will
ingness to concede that the Legislature
could not delegate its power to make
laws, but in this case it was purely a
case of local option, and although his
, learned friend had cited the case of ca
: parte Wall, he believed that since the
! decision of that case the sentiments oil
the people had undergone a complete
change, and local option laws were up.
held now all through the East. He
claimed that when this act left the hands
OF the Legislature, it was complete law
and he contended that it could not be
gainsaid. Taking up the threads of Mr..
, Chspman's argument, he carefully an
alyzed 1t in every particular, and at p.
M. the court adjourned until p. M. on
Monday next, hen he will be afforded
an opportunity to bring his argument to
a conclusion.