Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-11-25
AN INVOLVED AND IMPORTANT
QUESTION.

nc AstNOhD- - MIN lew udlS slLCS
quoted from the San Francisco Alta an
article pointing out that according to the
opinion entertained in San Francisco,
Oakland and by many lawyers, an Act
passed by the last Legislature subsequent
to the approval of the Oakland charter,
which charter creates a Board of Works,
as well as Legislative Council, had been
superseded to the extent of taking from
such Board in certain cases the rights con-
ferred upon it by the new charter and Civ
ing to the Council the right to expend GER
tain money raised by it.
The whole scheme of the charter hinges
upon the conferment upon the Board of
Works of the power to carry on public i'm
provements, while the Council is expressly
prohibited from any but legislative Acts
The Act of the Legislature referred to is
be found in the statutes of the twenty
eighth session (18S9), PIP. 800, ct seq. That
Act throughout its many sections confers
upon the Legislative branch of any city,
town or municipal corporation power to
create debt under certain conditions to
carry on public works, and confers the
power on such Legislative branch" to Sc
lect its own agents and engineers to carry
on such public works; all laws conflicting
are repealed by express words in the Act
Under the assumption that this general
law Is superior to all prior laws, either in
city charters or otherwise, it will be seen
that it expressly destroys the chief
function of the Oakland Board of Works,
and defeats the principal aim of the peo-
pie in adopting their charter, the Board
of Works" having been the great bone of
contention. If the influences that fatten
at the public crib had desired to defeat the
Board of Works scheme by direct legisla-
tive assault, they could not have framed a
bill more cunningly devised to that end to
escape the attention of the Board of
Works friends in the Legislature.
In common with the Alta, the Bulletin
and other journals, the RECORD UNION
has said that this is an involved question,
and one that puts in peril every city char
ter No matter if the Supreme Court shall
hold that the Act of March 9, 1889, does
not have primacy over the Oakland char
ter, d subsequent bench may reverse the
ruling, and thus the question of primacy
will remain one of doubt. We therefore sug-
gested constitutional amendment to set
tie it, if is the desire of the people to give
permanency to a city charter when once
approved, and complete independence I'M
der the charter. But the wisdom of such
a policy opens up another question, upon
which we do not now pass.
Our evening contemporary, the Bee, out
of hand, undertakes to decide this matter
and dogmatically settle question that di-
yides the bar of the State in opinion Our
esteemed contemporary says the Legisla-
ture cannot intefere with city charters of
the first and second class, except the peo-
pie first submit the proposed amendment
to the Legislature for its approval. Such
may be the law, and we do not fatty dis
pute il, but our contention is that it is an
open question, best settled conclusively by
constitutional amendment-if the people
wish to adopt that policy-and which
amendment. by the way, can be made
speedily, and while the next Legislature is
in session.
Let the reasoning of our contemporary
be examined, and let us see if the matter
is so clear as not to be involved. 1t de-
clares that by the constitutional amend
ment of 1887 land which, by the
way, the compiler of the statutes
of 1889 appears to have omitted from his
official publication of the Constitution it
is provided that charter duly submitted
and approved SHALL become the organic
law Of the municipality, and shall super
sede any existing charter and any amend
ments thereto, as well as all laws incon-
sistent Herewith" Our contemporary,
probably by inadvertence, misquotes. This
is the exact reading of the constitutional
amendment of 1SS7-all italics are ours:
Any city containing population of more than
ten thousand and not more than one hundred
thousand inhabitants may frame charter for
its own government, consistent with and subject
10 he Constitution and lars of this State =
Ard ~ lEfu hn oh rfa
of such city and the organic law thereof, and
shall superSede any existing charter aud any
amendments thereof, and all special laws incon-
sistent with such charter
1t will be noted that our contemporary
overlooked the word Especial" Evidently
that word was inserted with deIiberation,
because first, many special laws may be
passed by the Legislature, and secondly, at
the time many branches of city govern
ment had been erected by special laws,
and some of those of Sacramento still exist
under such laws. The words general lars"
were therefore excluded from the clause,
and under well known maxim of the law
such exclusion must be construed to have
been purposive.
To make this clearer it is only necessary
to point cut that at the last session of the
Legislature the fact was discovered, pre-
sumably that general Constitutional laws
passed subsequent to approval OF city
charters would control. The Legislature,
therefore, last March conceived the idea of
correcting the constitution so as to remove
the primaey of general laws over charters,
and accordingly March 10, 1889, proposed
an amendment to the Constitution, which
is to be voted upon by the people in 1890.
1t is proposed TO amend the identical SEN
tenee in dispute, and as this is all import
ant, we pat the two in parallel columns
for the convenience of the reader:
The Constitution as Ill The Constitution as it
is Article Nj, Sectioulis proposed to make it
S-amendment of 1881. gby vote OF he people in
1890. Article HI, Sec
Any city, etc etc. ton S.
may frame a charter,
etc. consistent with Any city. etc, may
and SUI jeet TO the Con frame a charter, etc,
stitnti0n and laws oaeonsistent with ana sub
the State audlject to the Constitution
il approved etc. itland laws of the State.