The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-06-17

kIDD Vi SecllOn i, Article Nv IlI.. II relation
10 the mode OF submitting proposed amend
ment TO the people, is correct nor that such is
tne pam letter, well as the manifest intent,
OF that section: But it is urged, that at sun
dry times within the last ten years, there
have been legislative departures from il to an
extent that, now, to correct. these errors,
would itself be error; that habit OF disre-
gard1ng the Constitution practiced tor few
years. should not be arrested. even when
ialr opportunity occurs for interposing against
IL, but that such habit, under the guise OF an
established custom, should be allowed to per-
peluale Itself until II becomes in Itself uncOnst-
tutlonal, whereby Legislatures would become
retormers OF the Constitution, instead Of us
servants; that the evils Of a return 10 constl-
tutlonal allegiance. in this instance, will be
greater than those OF continued contumacy;
ana that it were better to endure the former,
knowing what they are, than TO speculate
upon those which may be in store for IA Peep
whose representatives habtually disregard
constitutional obligations.
While it is true that there have been, though
10 limited extent, legislative oversights-
not constructions-of Section l, Article
ANIII., there has not been a single judicial
error of the sort committed, for the point has
never until now been presented to an y.court
In Oakland Paving Co. VS.. Hilton t69 Cal.
4oOl, in Oakland Paving Co. VS.. Thomkins
az Cal. O. and in Thomason VS.. Ashworth,
(73 Cal. 73) the validity of the first amend
ment TO The Constitution of 1879, namely,
tie amendment Of Section 8, Article NI was
considered The objection was, that the
had not been entered at large
Leen constltutionally proposed.
The question as to whether the amendment
had been submitted to the people under law,
vas not made at any time In fact, il was
not a case III which that question could be
raised, because the appointment was submitted
to the people by the same Legislature that
proposed II. or In which 1t was proposed. The
amendment was proposed in the Senate on
The 11th of January, 1883 and adopted as a
proposed amendment by that body on the
3Oth day OF the same month. on the following
posal introduced senate Bill No. 22S, which
afterwards, on the 7th OF March, SS3, be-
came q law under the title, IAN Act to pro-
vide Tor the submission of proposed amend
fornla TO the electors for their approval"
(Stat. 1883, p. So The proposed amend
ment was finally adopted as such on the 18th
OF February Stat 1888, p. 81 For this
history see 90 Cal. 4S7-4SS. One other
amendment was proposed BY the same Legis-
lature on March ! 8, 1888, in relation t. the
relation TO the State Board of Equalization,
at It's extra session on May 20, 1854, and ali
three We're ratified by the people at the No
VeInber election of that year.
In 1887 three several amendments were
submitted to the people a. u special election
held on the 18th of April, l SS7, under a law
passed py the Legislature, III which The amend
nehtS were proposed Laws 1887, p. 1929 and
were defeated.
At the November election. 1890, an amend
ment OF Section :, Article XII, was voted on
De said to have been submitted under any
law, as 1t was not advertised by the Governor.
Al lhe November election in 1892, five
several amendments We're submitted, three of
which were defeated and Two We're ratified
'SIat 1891, lages 3. 523, 52o, 531, $3.50
. Ihese were submitted BY the Governor act
ing under the Act of March :, 1883, though
the Act OF March 20, 1891, which provides
an entirely different mode OF submission and
ehects repeal Of the Act of 1883, had then
been in force since the first of July. 1891
Inc above is 81 flll ut rba bos
been done in the way OF amending orattempt-
ing to amend the Constitution
Six amendments have been ratified and
seven defeated. SIX were submitted under
laws passed by the Legislatures in which they
We're proposed. Six under the Act OF March
z, 1888, and one, as above stated, was voted
upon without being submitted under any law
1t may be admitted that upon intricate and
doubtful questions a contenporaneons con
struclon, uniformly pursued, and accepted
and acted upon until grown hoary with ave is
entitled TO great weight, as n matter in sun
port of conclusions arrived at upon a full con
sideration.
As the court said in the 'Five Per Cent
Cases" l10 U. s. Asa, "the conclusions to
which the court is brought upon consflera-
ton OF the statutes relied on, and of the,na-
ture OF the subjects to which they refer ac-
cords with the contempOraneous and uni
form construction given to them by the ex-
ecutiVe officers charged with the duty of put
ting them in force. II the court had doubt
OF the true meaning OF their provisions this
practical construction would be entitled To
great weight" "
And as The court in 1883 said in regard to q
which had prevailed for about
one hundred years (Ames VS.. Kansa III T.
,. 46S(: I'm view of the practical construc-
ton put on this provision Of the Constitution
oy congress al the very moment of the organ
ization of the Government, and Of the sipnid-
cant fact that from 1889 until now no cOmt
OF the United States has ever in its actual adj
publications, determined to the contrary. Ne
are unable to say that it is not within the
power OF Congress 10 grant to the inferior
courts of the United States Jurisdiction in
cases where the Superior Court has been
vested by the Constitution with original furis-
diction."
AS to such of the foregoing amendments rs
have forced an apparent, but unlawful en-
trance into the Constitution If any action
heretofore taken under them should he
challenged in this tribunal, then it will be far
the court to say how far it will 90. if il is will
ing under any circumstances TO tal1e a step in
That direction, to sustain an existing uncon-
stitutional law upon grounds of public nolicv
or upon any other grounds
But in this case such considerations have no
place. We are not dealing with an ompnd
ment already ratified, but We are here AT the
to forbid further intrusion within
the sacred precincts OF the fundamental Ia w
OF any more allen and unaccredited chances
In conclusion upon this point and nj the
risk, perhaps, of unnecessary repetition we
may ask If, under Section of Article Xviii
the constitution may be so amended as to re-
move the seat of Government from Sacra-
mento, what becomes of the latter clause Of
Section /, Article Xxx? Must if n@f h'
stricken out as redundant in order to satisfy
the ancient craving of the Garden Citv9',
Does one Part of the Constitution wine nm
another part? Are these two sections renuO
nant? If so, which must prevail-the one
which is general, or the one which Is snecfoi
the one which is earliest or the one which is
latest?
If there is any apparent conflict. must tba,-
not be construed so as to harmonic? Is there
any conflict which sophistry may weave or IN
genuity can conjecture? If there is. what is
II? On the contrary, is it not plain thai
the Two sections are entirely independent
upon or in conflict with each other. and that
full effect can be given to both within the
sphere designed for their respective opera
lions?
Article XVIII, Section l. of the Constit11-
ton provides Tor amendments thereto gener-
ally, not concerning the removal of the seat
Of government, by the submission of nro-
posed amendments to q vote of the peonIp If
the state. That section provides that sdf the
people snail approve and ratify such amend
mentS such amendments shall become a na II
OF this Constitution"
The amendment i'll question in this case
mas IN II an inherent defect. which renders il
void; vote OF the people cannot breathe
one provision in said Section l. Article
xviii, Is that on an affirmative vote by the
people the amendment "shall become a part
OF this Constitution"
But the proposed amendment within itself
provides that it shall not take effect or be-
come a part of the Constitution until certain
other Things shall be done by persons not
named, and who are not bound to do any
thing.
One-The State shall receive a donation of
ten acres of land. When this donation is to
be made is not designated.
Two-One million of dollars must be paid
into the State Treasury. Who is 10 pay it is
not stated. and no one is bound to pay the
money, and no time is fixed tor its payment
into the Treasury.
Three-The Governor, Secretary OF State
and AttorIey-General must approve the site
No provision is made for the event that the
state officers may not approve the site offered;
and no provision is made for the event of y