Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-08-03

as prohibited. In this case the counsel for the
defendant rely on subdivision 70 of the section
as prohibiting the amendment which is this:
sG!ranting 70 any corporation. association or in
dlsidual any special or exclusive right privil-
ege or immunity" The corporations intended
to be designated here are such private CORPORA
tlons as may be formed under laws passed by
authority of Article - of the Constitution, be-
cause when public corporations are referred to
in the Constitution they are DESIGNATED as s-rnu
nicipal corporation" or municipality" and the
word corporation is put upon the same footing
as an association oc individual" which NAV
well be done, but a municipal CORPORA don a
political subdivision of the State. could not be-
But there is another answer to the Proposition
The Act in question does not grant a right
privilege or immunity" to corporation bIft II
coniers a power upon Board of Police Com
mlssloneTs to elect not exceeding thirty police
men instead of fifteen only. right prfyiIeoe
or immunity is one thing, but power is another.
But 1t is enough for our present purpose 10 know
hat this provision of the Constitution docs NOT
assume 10 prohibit the Legislature from confer
ring powers upon the Board of Police Commits
stoners by special Act. There is no repusnauce
between that subdivision of Section q of article
ana the Act In question. The learned counsel
for defendant contends that the Act is repug-
nant to subdivision IS of that section, which pro
hlbits the Legislature from passing a
special Act, creating offices or prescribing
the powers and duties of Office Ia Counties
cities, cities and counties, townships election
or school districts" But the Act does not as
sumo to create any Office or prescribe the du-
ties Of any officer: it only authorizes The Board
OF Police Commissioners 10 elect an additional
number of policemen, if in their discretion they
deem IT necessary for the good government of
the city, and therefore there is no Conflict he
tween the Act and this provision OF the Consti-
tuition. And the counsel for the defendant con-
tends that the Act violates subdivision % of the
same section, which prohibits the passing of a
special Act affecting the fees or salary of any
ohcer, but as TO the salaries of the policemen
there. was no change made by the Act They
remain as fixed by the original Act. and there
lore there Is no conflict between the Act and
this provision of the Constitution. But this was
not intended to apply to special Acts by which
charters which existed at the time the Consti-
tuition was adopted should be amended because
by subdivision 80 of that SECTION the Iegisla
tnre is prohibited from passing special laws lin
all otheI cases where general law can be made
applicable" which is by implication declsra-
ton that in all cases where u general law can
not be made applicable the Legislature must
pass special Act and the Legislature is the
Judge whether general law can be made sppli.
csbIe There is no other city in the State whose
wants and necessities are in any manner SINH.
lar to the wants and necessities of Sacramento
There are times when more policemen are re.
CURED than at other times This city is tho
first field of operation of the criminals released
from the Folsom State prison. At the time of
the State Fair the criminal class appear in great
| numbers During such times nobody is safe IN
his house at night without strong police force
| Tor protection. 1t is necessary to invest the
Board OF Polce Commissioners with discre-
tlonaiy power as TO tIe number of policemen
necessary from time to time TO protect the CITY
against the criminal class, and 20 keen and
preserve peace and good order in the city. The
Indebtedness of the city differs from other cities
| in the state. 1t is necessary to maintain the
Board of Commissioners of the Funded Debt
| sinki Fund of the City of Sacramento and
| the fund created by the Act OF March 25th
| 1872 as sinking fund to redeem the flndad
| Indebtedness OF the city, or the city VIII he
come bankrupt but unless the Legislature had
power to pass the Act OF March 10, 1889, which
was amendatory thereof, through a special Act
neither the Commission nor the fund can be
maintained. The Act creating the Commission
and The tun' though special Act, and all Acts
amendatory thereof, are part OF the charter of
| the city. If the Act amending the police law
| csnnot be sustained for the same reasons the
Act amending the Act creating that Commits.
sion and the redemption fund cannot be sus.
| tanned and just what evils would befall the
city in that event is fearful to contemplate GEN
eral laws which would meet the wants of other
| cities would not be suficient to supply the de-
| hcieneies in those laws-nothing but a special
Act would do. The Supreme Court of Colorado
IN the case of Brown VS.. City of Denver & Pa
cine Reporter, 400, decided under a Constitution
In all respects like our Constitution, that where
| special city charter cannot be amended nv n
| general law applicable to the whole State so as
TO meet the necessities of a particular case then
| special law is authorized by the Constitution
| ITSELF and the decision of the question whether
or not special law is nee, ssary j. for the Leg
| islatute and not the Courts" And this Is in
|
| Sharpstein in Bishop vs. Oakland 5S,CaIifornia
$40. And as it is conceded that the charter vs. as
| not repealed or affected by the adoption of tine
P,esent Constitution, no other reasonable con-
! clusion can be attained than that as it is spe
| ci4l charter, adapted TO the wants d necessi-
| ties of sacramento alone, il can be amended b.
| special Act. Section % of Article " of the
| Constitution was taken from Section % Of Ar
| ticle ". of tie Constitution of Illinois prohib-
iting special legislation in certain cases but the
trainers OF our Constitution omitted from that
inn fha n IN Ca f,..,,n
| the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the
| Legislature by special Act from incorporating
cities, towns or villages, or changing
city or VILLAGE" The trainers an any TOWN @n1
Constitution having this subject under
| consideration provided in Section of Article
II. that corporations for municipal purposes
shall not be created by special laws" dm ca in.
dustrid, they omitted both frUm that section and
| from Section . of Article " of the Constitu-
ton, which is direc ed specially against special
| legislation. the clause prohibiting the Chang
| ing or amending the charter of any town city,
or village and the legitimate inference from
this is, that the trainers of the Constitution did
] not intend to take from the LesislatI1re the
power to amend the charters which IL
| was not intended to repeal The word anne d
means to supply deficiency, and the power to
| supply denclency In a special city charter by
| special act, may well consist with denial of
| the power TO create municipality by special
| charter-and If there were a reasonable Cionbt
as to whether the power to amend a special
l
deaial of the power to create a municipality by
special charter, 1t is the duty of the judiciary
| as we have seen, TO decide in favor of the power
| The conclusion OF the Court is that the Act in
| question is not repugnant to any provision of
the Constitution, and is therefore valid The
counsel for the defense made the point that it
| should be alleged in the complaint that there
was money in the Special Police Fund
sufficient to pay the claims of the plain
| tit; but as the statute provides that the
| salaries of policemen are ito be paid monthly
| from the City Treasury" the Court is Of
! the opinion that the syerment is unnecessary.
though this question was not necessarily In,
volved in the case of Dilmau vs. Sacramento
yet, upon consideration of the provis ons of the
charter cited by counsel for defendant we are
satisfied with the conclusion arrived at in that
case. If there is not sufficient money in the
Police Fund to pay the policemen they are en-
Titled TO their salaries out of the General Fund;
| but the Police Fund cannot be used for any
other purpose than to pay the policemen
Inc amended complaint is defec i've in not
alleging that the plaintiff and his assgnors
were elected by the Board of Police Commits
sloGers-and the general demurrer presents the
point, for which reason the demurrer must be
sustained. The case was argued upon the
other points which have been considered The
demurrer is sustained with leave to amend the
complaint within ten DAYS
JOHN w. ARMSTRONG, Judge.