Los Angeles herald., 1890-09-21

REDUCED TO AN ABSURDITY.

One OF the great moving causes that
induced the people of this State to call
Constitutional Convention in 1873 was
the passage of special legislation on all
kinds of subjects and interests possible
under the old constitution. If town
in Siskiyou was troubled by foray of
hogs which some enterprising citizen
insisted upon giving the freedom of the
streets to, a law had to be passed by the
Legislature to forbid the roaming at
large of porcine foragers in Mud Hol-
low. The old statute book had reached
an enormous bulk, and half OF the laws
it contained were really ordinances for
municipal regulations in the towns and
cities of the State. Hence the people,
when they called a constitutional con-
vention, gave as one of the reasons for
doing so the necessity of empowering
municipalities to manage their own af-
fairs. Therefore we find that the con-
vention adopted an article under which
cities were authorized to frame and adopt
charters for their munic ipal government
So careful was the convention to secure
these charters against Legislative inter
ference or control that the new constitu-
tiOn limited the power of the Legislature
to the mere adoption or rejection OF the
charter as whole, without the ability
to amend, alter or add to the provisions
contained in them. The debate in the
convention when this portion of the con-
stitution was under consideration shows
conclusively that the object was to give
cities the opportunity to govern them
selves in. local matters without interior
ence from the Legislature.
But what has been the result? Whilst
we thought we had brought popular
sovereignty to the doors of the
people living in cities, the Supreme
Court has so construed the article that
our charters are actually eviscerated of
their vitals, and the will and the inten-
tion of the people, as expressed in their
constitution, has been judicially de-
fined away. This has all been done by
giving false and unwarranted interpre-
tation to that provision in the article in
the Constitution which requires that
the charters adopted by cities should
conform with the organic and the
general laws of the state. The manifest
intention of this limitation was to pre-
vent municipalities from incorporating
IN their charters any provisions that
would conhict3Ewith the principles
of the constitution or with general
laws OF character that apply to the
whole people in their collective capacity.
For instance, if charter contained
provisions that confiicted with the gen.
eral laws that govern the rights OF cit
izens in the tenure or possession of
property, or in their ability to perform
functions that are guaranteed by the gen.
eral laws and the constitution, such
provisions would be void. But all pro-
visions natural to municipal govern
ment, such as repairing and improving
streets, police regulations, ETC., all these
would come under the power and pur-
view of a municipal charter and be
valid.
The charter adopted by Los Angeles
has complete system to govern the i'm
provement of streets. That certainly is
matter which properly comes under
the powers and duties of city, and
could not be omitted from city charter
without leaving it lame and impotent
instrument. Yet the Supreme Court
substituted the Vrooman Act for the
street article in city charters, and there
by placed every city in straight-iacke
to improve its streets under law which,
whilst it might work well in one city.
would operate disastrously in Others.
The case of Davis against the city
of Los Angeles, which has but
just been decided, follows in