Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-01-22
PRO AND CON.
CONFLICTING LEGAL OPINIONS ON
THE NEW CHARTER.
Views of Hon. 4. p. Gail n and Judge S.
S. Hon on this Important
Question.

The RECORD UNION published yesterday
morning the opinion of Robert t. Devlin
in regard TO the framing of new city
charter. Other lawyers have given opin-
ions on both sides of the question, and we
give below the views of Hon. A. P. Catlin
and Judge s. s. Holl, who take opposite
sides. The opinion of Mr.. Catlin was
given in answer TO letter from our even
ing cotemporary, and is as follows
The objections to a new charter founded upon
the idea that the city would necessarily lose the
benefits which may be derived in the future
from a funded debt sinking fund, such as now
exists under the Act of 1872, do not appear to
me to be well taken. 1t is true that new char
ter would of itself supercede the existing char
ter, and all amendments thereof as well as all
special laws inconsistent with such new char
ter but 1t is not TO be supposed that a new char
ter would reject all that is good or any palt
that is good, IN an old charter on the contrary,
it is to be presumed that all that is good will be
retained and made a part of q new scheme for
new city government
The people of the state, in establishing the
presezt Constitution, withheld from the Legis-
lature the power to charter cities by special
laws, and retained 10 themselves the right of
local selfgovernment in the matter of creating
and governing cities in populations OF 10000
and upwards. Just what the Legislature could
do under the old Constitution in the way of
granting charters by special Acts, the people
may now do in their primary capacity. In both
cases the charters would have to be consistent
with and subject to the Constitution and general
laws of the State.
The Act entitled Gan Act to provide for the
redemption OF the funded Indebtedness of the
city of SacrGnento.' passed March p 1872, and
creating Board of Commissioners to carry it
into effect, though not in form OF an amend
ment is in effect part of the city charter; and
Health nj
cation, and the Board of Fire Commissioners
AL these, and other features of the existing
charter, it is not doubted, can be retained by
being incorporated IN new charter. with such
additions, changes and improvements as wis
dom and experience may suggest.
II II be desirable 10 Incorporate in the pro-
posed new charter the whole scheme of the Act
OF 1872, with the amendments thereof of the Act
of March 10 1859, intact, the transition from
operations under those Acts, with all the bonds
coupons, monies and assets of the Commission,
to operations OF the new charter. can be made
without jar or loss, and as easy as it would be
to transfer from the old to the new city, the
Fire Department with all its steamers, horses,
properties and assets, in the form that it now
exists intact, If that should be desirable and
judiciou'.
There is reason why the Funded Debt Com
mission might fare better under the safe shelter
of a new charter. The Supreme Court in Il
Cal. $40, upheld the Act OF 1872, as not being
obnoxious to the new Constitution ard the lat
ter was not retroactive in its effect. The pro-
l.,
tuition against the kind of special legislation
which is found IN the Act of March 10, 1889 is in
these words The Legislature shall not dele
gate to eny special commission, private corpo-
ration, company, association or any individual
any power to make, control, appropriate, super
wise or any way interfere with any county, city
town OF municipal improvement, money, prop
erty or effects, whether held in trust or other
wise or to levy taxes or assessments or perform
any municipal functions whatever"
In the case mentioned the Court said "That
this proposition is prospective and applies to
the Legislature created by the Constitution in
which the prohibition is found. seems too clear
for argument The prohibition became operat-
i've with the rest of the Constitution and could
only limit the power of the legislature provided
for in the Constitution"
Now, it was the Legislature upon which the
above prohibition is laid which passed the Act
OF March 10, 1859, the passage of which was
procured at the instance of the Funded Debt
Commission, and upon which 1t relies as being
absolutely necessary to its future success. The
Act OF 1872 authorized the Commission to an
nually tax the city not exceeding So cents on
the Sl00 to purchase bonds at any price not eX-
ceeding 30 cents on the dollar. This, the Con-
stitution does not by retroaction affect. The
Act of 1889 authorizes the Commission to an
nually tax the city at the same rate to purchase
bonds at any price above IS cents on the dol
lar.
This the Constitution acts upon prospect
lively, and it seems to me about as certain as
anything in Jaw can be that if the Act of 1889,
the sheet 9. Saor in the hopes of the Commits.
sion, were before the Supreme Court it would
promptly be condemned as unconstitutional
Not so, If it were under the protection of a
charter made by people in their primary capac-
ity, for they only have the power of special leg
islation, a city charter being, except when
made under general law, applicable to all the
communities of the State alike, piece Of. spe
eial legislation in whole and in part.
There may be reasons more or less weighty
against moving for q new charter at this time, a
matter which / co not discuss but, in my judy
ment, the one Gdverted to is wholly insufficient
Very respectfully, A. P. CATLIN.
Sacramento, January 20. 1890.