The record-union., 1893-03-11
NULL AND VOID.
So Says Judge CatIin of the Special
Police Act.
Under Which in 1891 $4,000 Was
Raised to Pay Salaries of Ten
More Policemen.

Yesterday Judge Catlin rendered his
decision is the case of Burr VS.. Colnstock.
the case which was brought to enjoin
raising special tax to pay the salaries of
special policemen. The ballots contained
the words, For the SPECIAL TAX
J Els, and did not contain the words,
For the PAYMENT-YES," which
were required to be on the ballot by the
law authorizing the election to be held.
These facts appear TO be indisputable,
says the court:
Flrst-The act of the Trustees in
directing the ballots to be printed
IN the illegal form described is a
strong circumstance tending to show that
such was the form of ballots used at the
election.
Second-The Chairmen of both the
Citizens and Republican parties proved
that the tickets of both those parties were
SO printed.
Third-It did not appear by any evil
dence how the Democratic ticket was
printed.
fOurth-It appeared that there were
only these three ticket in the field
Flfth-The City Auditor produced one
OF each kind, taken from the ballot-box
after the election. Each of these three
ballots We're in the illegal form described.
SlXth-Several witnesses testified that
at the polls only these illegal ballots were
Seen.
Seventh-Mr. Comstock tried to find bal
lots IN the different precincts on the day
OF election containing the words, For the
Payment, No." and could find none.
Elghth-No witness was produced who
voted, or who ever saw ballot with the
words For the Payment, Yes" or the
words For the Payment, No." either
printed or written.
There were ballots voted with the
words, For the Special Tax, Yes,"
printed, upon which the word ''Yes"
was scratched, and the word ''No" writ
ten instead.
The court concludes, therefore, from
the whole testimony, that the ballots
used were all of the kind containing only
lhe words For the Special Tax, Yes"
II they had also contained the words
'for the Special Tax, No. that would
have been in substantial compliance with
the statute, by containing both the affirm
ative and negative propositions of the
questions, fairly, equally and distinctly
expressed.
lie holds, therefore, that said election
was Illegal, and that the tax which fol-
lowed II was illegally imposed.
Ihe validity OF the tax is also aSSailed,
atty of the Act authorizing it. 1t is in
Its nature a special and local tax, says the
court. Section of Article II. of the
Constitution authorizes the Legislature
to provide for the incorporation, organi-
Zatlon and classification in proportion to
population OF cities and towns, and re-
Iates to these objects only.
This Act attempts a classification for a
purpose not at all connected with org ami
zatiOn. The subject matter is a particu-
lar local debt incurred at a particular
time, and the Act is operative on that
debt alone.
1t also clearly applies to the city of Sac
ramento alone, although it does not des-
ignate it by name, and was so intended to
apply. Therefore the Act is both local
and special.
1t runs against Subdivision 10 of Sec
ton % of Article ", which torbids the
assessment and collection of local or spe-
clal taxes, and also against Subdivision
II OF the same section, which forbids
special or local elections
The court therefore holds the Act of
February 20, 1891, to be unconstitutional
and void