Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-04-03
THE CHARTER.
It Is Taken Into the Supreme
Court
MR.. W. T. BAGGErTs ARGUMENT.
CrOwed Courtroom Listens At
tentively-The Matter Sub
mitted on Briefs.

stJdlu uSl6Hudub ltOm aSbbbhlHS pldlut-
iff's property under the new Charter,
which was brought for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the Charter under
which the city is working is in force and
was legally approved by the Legislature,
was argued before the Supreme Court
yesterday. The case has attracted con-
siderable attention, for it is stated that
the legality of the charters of four cities
approved in similar manner by the last
Legislature, depends upon the decision
of the Court upon the questions pre-
sented to the Court in the issues raised
yesterday. The argument was set for
O'Clock yesterday afternoon, and at that
hour the courtroom in the Amestoy
block was crowded to its ut
most capacity. AS early as
half-past o'clock the front seats were
taken by number of clerks and other
employees of the city under the old gov
ernment. Then came large number of
policemen who have recently been "let
out" and the remaining chairs were
taken by lawyers and others who desired
to hear what was said on both sides.
The aisle and standing room was all
occupied when Chief Justice Besttie and
Justices Works, Mcfarland, Thornton
and Sharpstein entered and took their
seats on the bench. The petitioner, j.
Marion Brooks, occupied seat beside
his attorney, Mr.. w. T. Baggett, and
City Attorney Mcfarland represented
Assessor Fisher.
After few preliminary matters had
been disposed of, the Court announced
that it was ready to hear argument in
the case of Brooks vs. Fisher.
Mr.. Lee at this point entered with a
telegram, which, he stated to the Court,
was a request from S. D. Woods, of
Stockton, for permission to file briefs in
the case, as the Charter of that city de-
pended on the decision of the Court.
Chief Justice Beattie said that it
might not be necessary for Stockton to
file a brief, but if the case was submitted
on briefs then stockton could file its
brief.
City Attorney Mcfarland said that the
respondent had not expected that the
argument would 60 on at that time, and
Mr.. Chapman, who was associated with
him, was not able to be in attendance,
in consequence OF which he would like to
be given time to file brief in the mat
ter. Mr.. Baggett could make his argu-
ment, and then he would file brief in
answer in about fifteen days.
Chief Justice Beattie suggested that it
might be we'll to wait until it would be
found necessary to file brief in answer.
The case might be decided in favor of
the new Charter, and in that case Mr..
Mcfarland might not want to file brief.
Mr.. Baggett then commenced his ar
gument, and said that by consent it had
been agreed to put aside all trivial mat
ters, with some exceptions. AS pre-
liminary, he submitted q copy OF the
old Charter and a copy OF the new Char
ter, and pointed out the laws bearing on
the duty of the Assessor An issue
raised in answer to respondent, was that
the Assessor was not judicial officer.
This point, he thought, was not we'll
taken, for it had been held that the val
uation Of property by the Assessor was a
judicial act. The fact that the term of Of
Zee of the Assessor did net commence un-
III Jauu.rY pext wasSnot very important,
besides, ii was CONCEDED in the answer
that the Assessor was acting by vii1tus OF
provision of the new Charter, which
said that he should not take Office until
January next. He read decision sus-
tanning his point as to the duties OF the
Assessor being judicial, and the side
issue raised by the answer was as to the
mode of assessing the property under
the cid and new charters. He had
hoped that these side issues would be
left out, for the people were anxious to
know whether the Charter had been
legally passed by the Legislature or not.
The main question to be decided was
important, and the rest were side
issues.
He then said that the new Charter
had been ratified by the people by q
majority of 700. 1t was then sent TO the
Legislature and was attempted to be
submitted to them for approval, and the
question was whether the action of the
Legislature was such as to make the
Charter the organic law of the city. 1t
had been framed under that section of
the Constitution, relative to the making
of charters, which provided that, after
being submitted to the people, it
should be submitted to the Legislature
for approval or rejection as whole, and
if approved it should become the Charter
of the city. The question seemed to him
it said submitted for approval"
The Charter showed on it's face that it
was Joint Resolution submitted TO the
Legislature. He then read the Joint
Resolution, leaving out only the Charter
part, and said that this was the manner
in which the Charter was approved. The
heading was "Senate Joint Resolution
No. 2. Joint Resolution approving the
Charter of the city of Los Angeles, in Los
Angeles county, California, voted for and
ratified by the qualified electors of said
city at special election held therein for
that purpose, on the goth day of Octo.
ber, 1885,"
"Whesas, The city of LOS Angeles,
etc. This was signed as follows: Passed
the Senate, January %, A. d. 1889. Geo.
W. Peckham, Secretary Of Senate. Passed
the Assembly, January 30, A. d. 1889.
Ed. E. Leake, Clerk of the Assembly
and this bill was received by the Cover
nor this 31st day of January, A. d. 1889.
M. d. Boruck, Private Secretary of the
Governor.
The question before the court is now
what is meant by the expression Sub
mitted to the Legislature for its ap-
and whether the manner in
which it was approved was correct.
Chief Justice Beattie-" Y on admit that
it passed the Legislature as a joint reso-
luton ?"
Mr.. Baggett replied that he did admit
that the Charter was approved, if ap-
proved at all, by joint resolution, but
That was inst the point He did not