The record-union., 1893-05-15
AGAINST CAPITAL REMOVAL.
Another Setback to the Aspirations of
San Jose.
n. d. Rideout of San Francisco Con-
tests the Validity of the Action
Taken by the Legislature.

Another anti-Capital removal suit has
been filed in the Superior Court, entitled
The People of the State of California, on
the relation of y. d. Rideout, VS.. Secre-
tary of State Waite. Plaintiffs complain
and allege:
Flrst-That, for more than two years
past said relator has been, and now is, q
resident OF the City and County of San
francisco and State of California, and
during that time has been, and now is,
the owner, and in the possession of a
large amount of real and personal prop
erty situated in the counties of Sacra-
mento, Butte, Tulare, Kern, San Luis
Obispo and Lassen, and City and County
OF San Francisco, and that, as such, he is
a taxpayer in said counties for State and
county purposes, i'll an amount aggregat-
ing upwards OF $4,000.
Second-That the defendant is the Sec
retary OF State OF the State of California.
Third-That in the Legislature of the
State OF California, at its thirtieth session,
held at the seat of government, an amend-
ment was proposed in and adopted by
the Senate and Assembly, entitled SEN
ate Constitutional Amendment No. 23,'
by which it was proposed to amend Sec
ton OF Article NX. OF the Constitution
OF said State, so as TO change the seat of
government from the city of Sacramento
to the city OF San Jose, which proposed
amendment has been printed as adopted
March IA, 1893, at page 657 of the session
laws of 1893.
Fourth-That two-thirds of all the
members elected to said Assembly did
not vote in favor of said proposed amend
ment.
Fifth-That the said Legislature did not
enact any law by which it was provided
EDI al 30
the people in order to procure the ap-
proval and ratification by majority of
the qualified electors of said State, nor
otherwise provide for so submitting said
amendment to the people.
SiXth-That the said Legislature did
not enact any law, either by a two-thirds
vote OF each house, or otherwise, provid-
ing for The aforesaid change, or any
change. OF the seat OF government of the
State.
Seventh-That the said Legislature did
not enact any law by two-thirds vote of
each House, or otherwise, providing for
submitting to the people, at a general
election, or at any election, the question
OF the said change of the seat of govern
ment, for the approval and ratification
tnereof, by majority of the qualified
electors OF said State, nor otherwise pro-
vide by two-thirds vote of each house
10 SO submit the question of such change
to the people, nor did it provide by two
thirds vote, or otherwise, any regulation
or provision for any election to ratlfy the
same.
Eighth-That the said E. G.. Waite, as
Secretary of State as aforesaid, intends to,
and, unless restrained by the order ofthis
court, will certify said proposed amend
ments to each and all of the County
Clerks of the several counties of this
State as lawful and valid amendment to
the Constitution, for the purpose of hav-
ing the same voted upon at the next gem
eral election.
Ninth-That such action by said Secre-
tary of State will cause large expendi-
ture of public moneys, and Will, in many
other ways, be injurious to the people of
the State, and especially to this relator,
and be will thereby be compelled to pay
additional taxes in a sum of at least $500.
Therefore plaintiffs pray Judgment:
tirst-That this court hold and deter
mine that the said Constitutional Amend
ment, No. %, was not legally adopted by
the Senate and Assembly of the State of
California.
Second-ThaJ the defendant. be enjoined
and restrained from certifying said pro-
posed amendments TO the several County
Clerks of this State.
Third-That this plaintiff have such
other, further or different relief as the cir
cumstances of the case may require.
John w. Armstrong and A. l.. Hart ar
attorneys for plaintiff.