Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1889-05-19
THE DECISION.
1t Reached Los Angeles Last
Night,
THE COURT is UNANIMOUS.
The Charter Was Approved by the
Legislature as PrOviden for in
the Constitution.
The COURT is UNANIMOUS

OiOiA "a th0 ouPlohC SOuIJ III tulb City
last night, and was fled by him, The
opinion, which sustains the new Charter
of the city, is as follows:
This is petition to prevent the de-
fendant from proceeding to act as the
Assessor of the city of Los Angeles.
This petition alleges among other things
First. "That, on the goth day OF Oc-
| tober, 1888, the qualified electors of said
city ratified Charter for the govern
ment of said city, framed, as provided by
Section 8, Article II, of the Constitu
tion of the State of California, and there
after, to.wit On the - day of -,
1889, resolution was introduced in the
Senate OF the State of California (the
Legislature being then in session., en-.
titled, "Senate Joint Resolution No. g."
purporting to be resolution approving
the aforesaid Charter; that majority OF
the members elected to the Senate, and
| a majority of the members elected to the
Assembly, voted in favor of the said
resolution on the 23d day of January,
1889:
Second. Said Charter was never SUBJ
mitted to the Legislature of the State OF
California for it's approval or rejection, as
provided by Section of Article l. of the
Constitution that neither the said reso-
luton nor the said Charter was never
read on three several days in each house,
nor was In either declared case of urg-
ency that neither said resolution nor said
Charter was ever presented to the
Governor of the State of California for
his approval or rejection, nor were they,
or either OF them, signed or approved by
by said Governor.
Third. That the powers and duties of
the City Assessor in relation to the ass
essment of property prescribed by the
laws existing prior to the framing OF the
aforesaid Charter were other than and
essentially different from the powers and
duties provided in said aforesaid Charter.
Fourth. That Notwithstanding that said
Charter has never been submitted to the
Legislature for its approval or rejection,
and never presented to and signed and
approved by the Governor, the said de-
fendant, as City Assessor, without and in
excess of the duties and powers con-
ferred by prior laws, threatens, and is
now proceeding to assess all taxable
property in said city, according to and
byvirtue of the provisions of said Charter,
Il anu hoO otiiOi nlSO, huu tu6
property OF your petitioner, notwithstand
ing his attention has been called to the
excess OF jurisdiction.
The prayer of the petition is for can
alternative writ of prohibition, command
ing the defendant to refrain from further
proceedings in the matter herein until
the further order of the court, and to
show cause before this court, at a time
a nd MI cv,oa.Ea1 l.
should not be absolutely restrained from
any further proceedings in the said mat
ter"
1t will be seen by the allegations of
the petition that the sole question pre-
sented is as to the validity of the Charter
of Los Angeles.
Two objections are made to the Char
ter:
First. That it was not legally adopted.
Second. That it is inconsistent with
general laws.
First. 1t is conceded that the Charter
was adopted by the Legislature, by a
joint resolution passed by majority of
the members elected to both Houses of
the Legislature, and it is claimed, on the
part of the petitioner, that this is not
sufficient, but that it must have been
adopted by bill passed after the neces-
sary readings provided for in the enact
ment of law and approved by the Gov
ernor.
The Constitution, so far as it relates to
the action of the Legislature, provides
that tie Charter shall he submitted to
the Legislature for its approval or rejec-
ton as whole, without power of altera-
ton or amendment, and, If approved by
a majority Uote of the members elected to
each House, it shall become the Charter
of such city," (Const. Art XI, Sec. 8.
1t is contended by the petitioner that
the term Legislature" as here used,
means the law-making power, and in
cludes the Governor, and, incidentally,
it is contended that, so far as the enact.
ment of laws is concerned, the Governor
is part of the Legislature.
The Language of the Constitution re-
ferred to is peculiar. 1t provides,
First, For submission to the Legisla-
ture for its approval, or rejection;
Second, That if approved by a majority
vote of the members elected to each
House, 1t shall become the Charter OF said
city.
This does not, in terms, require any
action on the part of the Governor, but
expressly provides that, Immediately
upon its being approved by MAORI y of
the members of the two Houses of the
Legislature, it shall become the Charter
of the city.
The Governor is not, in fact part OF
the Legislature. The Constitution pro-
vides: "The legislative power of this
State shall be vested in a Senate and
Assembly, which shall be designated,
the Legislature of the State of Cali
fornia." (Const. ART. ". Sec ~
1t will be seen, therefore. that the
Legislature is one thing and that the law
making power of the State another. 1t
1t does not follow that because in other
parts of the Constitution, as contended
by counsel for petitioner, the term Legis-
lature, SO far as it applies to the enact
ment Of laws, includes the Governor as a
part OF the law-making power, that such
is the effect of the language above quoted
with reference to the adoption of city
charters. The language of the section
itself clearly shows different intention
1t provides for the submission to the
Legislature, which does not necessarily
include the Governor. and provides in
express terms that the proposed charter
shall become effective upon its beinp
approved by the members of that body
IL seems to us that this language is sc
plain and unequivocal that it cannot cal
for a. construction by this Court. 1t /.
enough that the Constitution has SO pro
vided. This being the effect of the Com.