The record-union., 1891-11-17

surveying and preparing charts 0f the
! bay OF Suisun and The Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers.
4 demurrer to the answer was sus-
/ tanned by the. trial court and judgment
was rendered in favor OF Stevenson. The
ControIier then appealed.
THE DEgIs-CN.
The Supreme Court opinion. which
was written by Justice DeIlMven. FIRST
quotes Ser-ion 81 of Article N. OF the
! Constitution in relation 10 the power Of
the Legislature in the matter of making
appropriations, and the court then goes
on 10 say:
'By these provisions OF the Constitu-
ton there is tenied to the Legislature the
! right to make direct appropriations to
! Individuals from general considerations
OF charity, or gratitude, or because OF
7! some supposed moral obligation resting
upon the people of the State, and such as
Just and generous man, although under
no legal liability so TO do, might he will
ing to recognize in his dealings with
others less fortunate than himSGlf. 1t
was because of abuses which had crept
into legislation, by reason Of tho un-
limited power heretofore exercised by the
Legislature in determining what indi-
! vidUai claims should be recognized by
gree legislators from the opportunities Of
/ persons interested in securing such &D-
preparations that the
POWER OF THE LEGISLATURES
Was thus limited by the present COnsti-
f! tuition Of this state. In this view tharc
can be no doubt that if the facts are as
alleged in the answer Of the defendant,
the Act under consideration ought never
to have been passed.
/ But these facts do not appear up0n
! the face OF the Act itself, and the question
| is thus presented, whether it is compe-
tent for the court i'll this or any
form of action to receive evidence
! 0ija7lde to establish such facts. and thus
10 impeach and overthrow a law which.
upon its face, and Independent Of proof
is presumptively valid.
This case. "a thus presented, is TO be
distinguished from those in which il has
been held that the court may look into
the journals Of the Legislature for the
purpose of determining whether a stat
ute was in fact passed by the requisite
votes required by the Constitution In
such cases the question is, whether the
law was in fact enacted, and not whether
| the Legislature, In passing the statute
properly discharged its duty by the pre-
! H.uinary aScertalnment Of facts which
| alone would justify such legislative ac-
ton. In our opinion, the question which
we have stated, as the one for decision
! here, must be answered in the negative
TIE POWERS OF COURTS.
while the courts have undoubted
power to declare Il statute invalid when
1t appears to them inthe course Of iudicial
action to be in conflict with the COnstitu-
ton, yet they can only do so when the
question arises as a pure question Of law
unnliXed with matters Of fact, the exist
ence Of which must be determined uDou
a trial, and as a result of, it may be, con-
fiicting evidence. When the right to en-
act a law depends upon the existence Of
I facts, ii is the duty Of the legislature
before passing the bill, and of the Gov
ernor before approving it, to become
satisfied i'll some appropriate way that
the facts exist, and no authority is
conferred upon the courts to hear evi-
dence and determine, as a question of
| fact, whether these coordinate depart
mentS of the State Government have
properly discharged such duty
The authority and duty to ascertain
the facts which ought to control legisla-
tive action are, from the necessity OF the
case, devolved by the Constitution upon
those to whom it has given the power to
legiSlate, and their decision that the facts
exist is conclusive upon the courts in the
absence Of an explicit provision in the
Constitution giving the judiciary the
| right to review such action.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.
'We therefore hold that, in passing
upon Iue COuSlILullOn3llIy OF q statute,
the court must cOnfne itself to a consid-
Grafton OF those matters which appear
upon the face of the law, and those facts
OF which it can take judicial notice. II
| the law, when thus considered, is not
upon its face unconstitutional the court
viii rot go behind it, and by a resort to
evidence undertake to ascertain whether
the Legislature in its enactment observed
the restrictions which the Constitution
imposed upon it as duty, and to the per-
forlnance of which its members were
bound by their oaths Of Office"
The Supreme Court then cites Cooley
on Constitutional Limitations,D and sew
eral cases before Eastern courts, and
states that this view seems to be sustained
by the decisions of the highest courts of
other States, and is in harmony with the
central idea of the Constitution in pre-
scribing the independence and equality
OF the three great departments of the
State.
THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
In conclusion, the court says: Gas al
ready stated, the Act in question does not
show upon its face the nature of the claim
which the petitioner made against the
State, or that the appropriation thereby
made Is gift. The statute is unusual in
form, and it may be difficult to assign
any good reason for the singular pro-
vision that the State shall discharge by
monthly installments the Indebtedness
which the Act admits, and in the event OF
petitioners death before it is fully paid,
shall be released from the payment Of any
! balance then due; but this does not affect
| the question OF the power of the Legis-
lature to SO provide, nor authorize the
court to declare that it was enacted in alb
solute disregard of the Constitution The
| Judgment is affirmed
|