The record-union., 1891-07-29
COYOTE SCALP ACT.
The Courts VIII Probably Have to
Pass Upon 1t.
Attorney-General Hart Doubts its Va
hdity. and Controller Colgan is
in Quandary.

Will get pay for their plunder. Clalm-
ants will have to mandamus the Board OF
Examiners, or an agreed case be presented
to the Supreme Court, in order to solve
the difficulty.
The situation is curious one; the
Legislature passed the Act and the At
torney-General gave it as his opinion that
1t was constitutional. But coyote scalp
ers would do well to take warning, and
not count too confidently on their getting
immediate pay for their trophies.
The matter of allowing claims for boun-
ties on coyote scalps came up yesterday
before the State Board of Examiners, and
the law was freely discussed. 1t is un-
derstood that difference Of opinion ex-
lists among the members of the board on
the constitutionality and operative char
aeter of the law.
SECRETARY wAITE's VIEWS.
Secretary of State Waite said he had al
ways been opposed to the policy Of the
Act, and extremely doubtful as to its con-
Stitutionality. As the Act was more and
more discussed, the tendency was more
and more to regard it as of a dangerous
chsracter-dangerous to the finances of
the State, particularly, and especially So,
since the claims pouring in threaten to
deplete the Treasury.
The discussion in the board yesterday
involved the conStitutionality of the \ ct
on account of the subject matter not be-
ing covered by its title.
Another question was as to whether or
not the bounty could be paid until spec
ial appropriation is made by the Legisla-
ture for the purpose, provision therefor
not having been included in the tax levy
for the present fiscal year.
Attorney-General Hart was inclined to
think the Act was not strictly in accord
ance with the Constitution, and he stated
that in his opinion to Controller Colgan
he had not considered nor passed upon
all of the issues.
FULL TEXT OF THE OPINION.
At Secretary Waite's request the opin-
lon was read as follows (which is the first
time it has teen published i'll fulD:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OFFICE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
SACRAMENTO, May 13, 1891.
Hon. Il. p. CoIgan, State Controller
DEAR SIR: In accordance with your re-
quest / have made careful examination
of Chapter CXCVIII., OF the Session
Laws Of the Legislature of 1891, approved
March 81, 1891, page go, entitled, "An
Act fixing bounty on coyote scalps,'' in
reference to which statutes you ask me
the following questions:
l. Is said statute constitutional?
2. When does said Act take effect?
3. Can parties killing coyotes during
the sixty days following March 81, 1891,
the day of approval of said Act, obtain a
bounty for scalps so taken during that
time?
4. Can the bounty provided for in said
Act be paid without there being an ap-
preparation for that purpose?
In reply: First-My opinion is that
said Act is constitutional. 1t has always
been considered proper on the part of the
Legislature to pass an Act for the pur-
n wild mi, ol
sidered obnoxious to the inhabitants or
portion Of the inhabitants of the State
,. Section l of this Act provides that
any person who shall kill or destroy any
coyote or coyotes, in any county of this
State, otter the passage Of hfs Act, shall
be paid bounty of 50 out of the general
fund in the State Treasury, for each
coyote SO destroyed. From this language
conclude that any person killing coyotes
in any county of this State after the 3Ist
day of March, 1891, is entitled to So for
each scalp taken in the manner provided
for in said Act
3. By the provisions of the statutes in
this State it is provided that every Act of
the Legislature takes effect the sixtieth
day after its passage, unless otherwise
specified in the Act.
There is no section in the Act under
consideration providing that it shall take
effect Immediately after its passage; but
the provisions of the first section are
equivalent to such language.
L am of the opinion that the Board of
Supervisors OF the respective counties of
this State may at their first meeting after
June 1891, pass upon or take into con-
slderation the question of determining
who shall be entitled to money under
said Act; that each Board of Supervisors
may. authorize the payment of money
and include all scalp taken after the 3lst
day of March, 1891, and during the quar-
ter ending June 30, 1891, and that the first
quarterly statement of the Board of Su-
pervisors should be for the months of
April, May and June. In order TO be en-
Titled to bounty person must file with
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors the
affidavit required by Section 2 of said
Act, produce and deliver the scalps, de-
G mand the certificate provided for in said
Act, which affidavit and demand must
be made within three months from the
date of killing the first coyote, TO COM
ply with the provisions of Section of
said Act.
4. The fourth question asked is quite
serious and has caused me considerable
thought. ] find that in the case of Hum
bort V. Dunn "a Cal. 57), the Supreme
Court held Up 59) that, while it is GUS
tomary to use the words there is hereby
appropriated the sum- etc, in bills ap-
proprlating money for salary and other
expenses OF the government il is not
essential to the validity OF an appropria-
ton that these words, or any of them,
should be used, if the Legislature has
clearly designated the amount and the
fund out OF which it is to be paid. Has
the Legislature fixed the amount of the
claim and designated its payment out of
of a certain fund? These are the only
things necessary to the validity of the APP
propriation there being no other consti-
tional objections to the bill than as to the
sufficiency of the act of appropriation.
(McCauiey V. Brooks 16 CAL 2S y,
/ think from this that the Act under
consideration is a sufficient appropriation
Tor the purpoSeses therein designated
The Legislature has designated the
amount to be paid for each scalp, has pro-
Vldeq that 1t shall be paid out of the Gem
eraI Fund, and although sufficient coy
otes may be killed TO deplete the General
Fund, TO the detriment Of some other ap-
preparation, yet it would not be sufficient
reason for holding that the amount
should not be paid by reason of the
Leglslature not making a special appro-
priatlon. In fact the deficiencies that
arse ana upon which the Legislature
must act at the various sessions, are often
occasloned by such legislation
In connection with this it might be we'll
70 consider the case of Proll VS.. Dunn,
80 Cal, 90.
l think that the bounty should be paid,
Notwithstanding the fact that the Legis-
lature has not made special appropria-
ton for the purpose. Yours. respect-
fully, VIII. III, HAPT.
Attorney General
GENERAL HART EXPLAINS.
Mr.. Waite contended that Mr. Hart,s
opinion certainly held the Act to be consti-
tutionai, but Mr.. Hart argued that he did
not examine into any points excentino
those asked by the Controller. He de,
parted ON the afternoon tram yesterday