Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-04-03

which must be signed by the Governor.
The Governor of the State is part of
the law-making power, and all bills must
be submitted to him. The Charter was
not submitted to him and consequently
it did not go before the whole Legisla
ture. The constitution provided that no
law could be passed, and the Charter
was law, except by bill, which must
be read three separate times in each
House. On the other hand, it was
claimed that the action of the two
Houses OF the Legislature would be suf
fieient, and it might be concluded that
the phrase, Approved by the Legisla.
ture" meant only what it said and
nothing more.
In support of his position he
read the sections OF the Constitution re-
lating to the. powers of the Legislature,
and he thought that the provisions there
in contained were similar to that in re.
lation TO the approval of charters. The
provision, "And if afterward by ma
iority vote OF each House," was substan-
TALLY the same language used in relation
to all laws.
In answer to question by the Court
as to whether the language was the same,
he replied that it was not exactly so,
but that, in his opinion, the intent was
the came. The section in reference to
the approval of charters did not attempt
to confer the power of approving en- each
House, and, in his opinion, it only meant
to state how many in each house were
required to be present.
The term Legislature" meant, accord
ing to his belief, the law-making power
of the State, and it was used all through
the Constitution in this sense. This did
not mean that the Legislature could do
all it was empowered to do by concurrent
resolution, and the question then was,
"Is this action of the Legislature law :?
II it is. then it must be bill" 1t was
an attempt of the Legislature to make a
law by Concurrent Resolution, without
the approval of the Governor, notwith-
standing the provision which makes it
mandatory that every law must be bill
and every bill must be signed by the
Governor.
Mr.. Baggett then went into the history
of the framing of that part of the Consti-
tuition relative to charters, and said that
as first prepared by Judge Hager at the
that cities could make char
IeIB Vi IuOll OWA WllbOub
them to the Legislature, but this was
made. The purpose of this amendment
was to subject the Charter to the law
making power of the State.
Justice Thornton-"The provision in
this section of the Constitution is differ
erent from the others, is it not? This is
a special power given to the Legislature.
is it not ?"
Mr.. Baggett replied that it was, but
he held that the word Legislature meant
the law-making power and included the
Governor. The Charter should have
gone before him in the shape of bill.
Justice Thornton wanted to know why
the Charter should have been passed by
a bill. "The Legislature could not
amend it. 1t could not change it. Is
that bill?"
Mr.. Baggett said that the question was
whether the word Legislature did not
mean the law-making power"
Justice Thornton-"B the Constitu-
tion says that if two-thirds of both houses
approves it, it shall become law. That
does not seem to mean the Legislature in
the sen 3e of the aw-making power"
Mr.. Baegett, in reply, read that section
of the Constitution providing for the
passage of bill by majority of both
houses.
Chief Justice Beattie: "Read further,
and it says the bill must go to the Gov
ernor. The provision about the approval
of Charters does not say that"
Mr.. Baggett argued that the provision
in question simply declared what major
ity was required. He then read de
cision in case in Illinois in which q
law was attempted to have been made
by joint resolution, and which the
Court held could not be done under the
Justice McFa.1anld said that there was
NOTHING, In that case which covered this
case. That Joint resolution was passed
under the general provisions OF the Con-
stitution. This ioint resolution was
passed under a special provision of the
Constitution Certainly the legislature
means the Senate and the AS
semhly. 1t seems to me that this section
specially provides that the word legisla-
ture here is used in other portions OF the
Constitution"
Mr.. Baggett said that the Court
should consider another point. The sec
ton under which the Charter was framed
provides that it must conform to the
Constitution and general laws of the
State, and the City Attorney has said
that he is going to work under the gen.
eral street law, that that part of the
Charter with reference to the streets is
not good.
Justice Thornton-"How does the
street law affect this case ?"
Mr.. Baggett replied that if one part of
the Charter was imperative the whole
was invalid because it had been made
law in opposition to general laws. 1t
night be found on going over
it that one half of it was
in opposition to the general laws
and in that case general laws would pre-
vail, but this would not be what the peo-
pie voted for.
Justice Thornton-But Mr.. Baggett do
you want us to go over all the Charter,
and point out the nconstitutionalities?
Mr.. Baggett-It is important that these
points should be decided. The point is
serious, and, thought, germane to the
question.
Justics Thornton-But we don't sithere
to decide points. We sit here to decide
cases.
Mr.. Baggett held that it was important
that the Charter should be in conformity
with the general laws. "This Charter is
not SO, and the question is, can it exist ?"
Justice McFarland-This same ques-
ton would arise, would it not, if it had
L l. r i II