The record-union., 1893-03-15
ABSOLUTELY VOID.
The Capital Cannot be Moved by a
Resolution.
Views of Distinguished Lawyer OH
the Action of the Legis-
lature,

Yesterdays Examiner contained the
following opinion from the pen of Grove
l.. Johnson:
ou ask my views in regard to the con-
stltutiol.ality of the proposed amendment
TO the Constitution, whereby it is pro-
posed to have the people vote upon the
question of removing the State Capital TO
San Jose.
In my opinion the action taken by the
Legislature is clearly unconstitutional
and absolutely void.
The provision of the Constitution upon
this subject is found in Section / of
Article NN. of the Constitution.
The proposed constitutional amend
ment is not u law-does not pretend 10 be
a IaW-Was not introduced as law. and
is merely resolution. Being a resolu-
ton IL was only read once in each House.
anu lnasmuch as all laws must he read
three times III each House it cannot be
considered legally adopted as law.
1t was evidently introduced under the
provisions OF Section l OF Article XVIII.
OF the Constitution, which provides that
amendments may be proposed in either
House ana must receive a two-thirds
vote OF ali the members elected, and
m iurther PROVIDES That # 1T shall
be the duty OF the Legislature to submit
such proposed amendment or amend
N-'NA+N'' " Wv EOOEI4O III SUCH manner and
at such Tune and after such publication as
may be deemed eXpedient."
Ine proposed amendment be con-
sluereu as offered under this article of the
Constitution it is void, because il con-
talns no provision as to the manner or
llllie III winch said proposed amendment
shall be submitted 10 the people. Ifthe
proposed amendment be considered as
offered under Article y Y of the Conslitu-
tlon 1t Is equally void for the same rea-
son.
Inc Legislature must at the time of
proposing any constitutional amendment
TO the people provide in what manner
ana al what tune the will of the people
! thereon shall be ascertained, and this c.n
not be done by any general law made 70
/ apply 10 future amendments. At the
time each amendment is pronoSed nro-
vision must be made tor its submission
to the people. This is made nandatorv
ny the express terms OF Section of A rti-
Gle AN III, as well as by the provisions of
SecIloh = OF Article / OF the Constitution,
which reads thus:
Section z. The provisions of this
constitution are mandatory aad prohib-
llOrE unless by express words thev are
declared tosbe otherwise"
II the friends of the proposed amend
nienL rely upon Section l OF Article X X
thcy Will nnu themselves confronted
N4NA4 Tvs pam 4d44S uSSS, MnlCn reads that
The law must be approved and ratified
at a general State election by maioritv
OF the qualIhed electors of the State yot-
ing on the amendment" under such s'reo
ulatIons and provisions as the LegisIa
ture by tWo-thlrds vote of each Honse
may provide, submitting the question of
change to the people"
lnaSmuch, therefore, as no provision iS
made as to the time or manner in which
the people OF California shall vote nnon
the proposed constitutional amendment
1t necessarily follows that the same is do
iectlve and void.
There is another, and, think. fatal
objection 10 the amendment. The Con-
suJutlon, in Section l OF Article X\ av
pressly recognizes that 'the question of
change OF the seat of government shall
be submitted to the people. The pro-
posed amendment does not so provide
even admitting for the sake of arguments
tnaJ under some general provision of
law IL can be voted on at the next general
election, because The question of chanpe,'
Is not submitted to u vote, but siruDlv the
naked proposition as to amending Sec
ton OF Article AX. of the Constitution
Another serious objection, but perhaps
not constitutional one, is the fact that
The proposed amendment does not re-
qulre that San Jose shall donate a site of
ter acres nor The sum of Sl,000,00U before
Il lSLISONdl Is Hdu 10 San Jose. All that
the plain reading of the proposed amend
ment means IS that, after the State Capi-
tai Is removed to San Jose and the State
has lost its 25,OO0,000 now invested at Sac
ramento, III no event shall the Capital be
removed from San Jose unless some
other city gives the State a donation Of
Si,JOO,OUO and site of at least ten acres of
ground. Such must be the construction
put upon it by the courts, although the
friends of the proposed amendment
claimed while securing its passage
through the Legislature that it called
upon san Jose TO make a donation OF
land and money.
In the limited time at my disposal
since your question was propounded |
have not been able to fully examine into
ali the legal aspects of this matter, but
from my researches L am convinced that
the action taken by the Legislature re-
garding the removal Of the State Capital
is nugatory.
''I HAVE used Ayers Hair Vigor for
number of years, and it has always given
me satisfaction. 1t is an excellent dress
inc l,raVpntS the hair from turuiucr orav