Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-03-01
The vrooman Act and the Char

EDITORS HERALD-Are the provisions
of our Charter relating to the grading
and improvement of streets and con-
struction of sewers, bridges, etc., void
and of no effect if they conflict with the
Vrooman Act?
Article IL, Section 6, OF the constitu-
ton provides that "cities or towns here
tofore or hereafter organized, and all
charters thereof framed or adopted by
authority of this constitution shall be
subject to and controlled by general
laws"
Article IL, Section s, provides that our
Charter must be consistent with and
subject to the constitution and laws of
the State, and shall supersede all spe-
cial laws inconsistent with said Charter. "
In Stsnde vs. Election Commissioners,
81 Cal, 324, the Supreme Court held
that the elective officers of San Fran
cisco were not to be elected under spe.
cial act relating to that city but under a
general law fixing elections in November
and that the city was subject to general
laws, but that the act for incorporation,
organization and classification" of cities
and towns according to population was
not such general law.
In Thomson VS.. Ruggles, SO CAL,
465, the Supreme Court held that the
Vrooman Act was a general law, within
the meaning of Article IL, Section 16.
All our codes declare that the word
"person includes a corporation" thus
expressing the general rule that corpora
| tions are subject to all laws governing
l nd uiII1olc Nonacoorslr
! claws" and general laws" mentioned
in the Constitution mean all general laws
relating to municipal corporations. If
not, they mean nothing. Also the char
| ter can only supersede all special laws,
and not general laws relating to corpo-
rations.
All provisions of laws granting the
power Of taxation must be strictly OBJ
served. No provision in the Charter which
| is more beneficial or less onerous to the
taxpayer than similar one in the Act,
will be affected by it, but nothing i'm
pairing or abrogating any provision in
the Act for his benefit or protection, or
differing from the Act in substance, will
probably be held Inconsistent with it.
1t is an illustration of some of the diff
ferences between the Charter and the
act.
The act provides that the protest oi
the owners of one-half of the frontage
shall suspend further proceedings for six
months, and,the Charter that the protest
of two-thirds of such owners shall sus-
pend further proceedings for only three
months, thus impairing right conferred
upon the taxpayers. The act, hut not
the Charter. provides that if the cost
assessed exceeds one-half the value OF
the property. the excess shall be paid by
the city. This omission deprives the
taxpayer of an important right.
The act provides that incurring any
Indebtedness for sewers, in excess of the
money in the street contingent fund ap-
plicable to sewers, must be submitted to
the votes of the city electors, and the
charter permits the Council to direct
such proportion of the cost as it NAV
deem just to be assessed to the city gem
orally, to be paid out of moneys in the
treasury Of the city not otherwise appro-
priated, which seems the only
provision applying to such excess.
Whether it so applies or not, it disre-
CARDS the rights of all City electors, and
this is an important question in relation
to our proposed sewer to the sea.
The Act provides notice of the assess
ment and lien upon the property by
mailing it to each owner and recording
it in the Office of the Superintendent Of
Streets, and the Charter provides for re-
cording it with the County Recorder and
publishing it,
The Act requires, in all cases posting
notice of intention on the line OF the
work in conspicuous manner, and the
Charter only publication.
These are only few Of the matters in
which the Charter and Act differ.
VFTO