The record-union., 1893-06-09
CAPITAL REMOVAL.
Grove |. Johnson's Able Argument
in the Case.
a Mastery Presentation of Plaintiffs
Side of the Issue-The Case
Under Amusement.

the case of Livermore VS.. Waite, made
his argument for the plaintiff.
He said he approached the argument OF
the case with great diftidence, because OF
the importance OF the case and also the
fact that his health not having permitted
him to give it the close attention it de-
manGed. He wished to say at this time
that he regretted that the attorneys Of this
city had not accepted the invitation ex-
tended to them by Mr.. Hatfield and him.
self to aid them by their advice and coun-
sci in a case which was of so much i'm
portance to the future prosperity OF the
city and county.
In his judgment the amendment was
invalid for the reason that it is drawn
upon the basis Of Section l of Article
XVIII, instead of Section l of Article
NIX. An unbroken line of decisions OF
the supreme Courts in different States IS
10 the elect that when the constitution
declares a subject must be proceeded with
in a certain way it must be dealt with in
the way prescribed in order to be valid,
and cannot be dealt with in any other.
The direction in the section is para
mount, and following the decisions it
necessarily results that proceedings TO
amend the Constitution must be in strict
dCCOIudlcb Win us JIONlolOnS WHICH
prescribes the method of amending it,and
each step must be followed with strict
hess. He quoted long list of authori-
ties bearing upon the point. THESE
seemed to his mind to place the matter
most strongly and TO lay down and con-
tlrm this rule.
He could only find, he said, one oppo-
site instance, which had been quoted by
his friend MOorehOuse, and even that al
hrmed the rule. This was a decision by
Judge Brewer of Kansas.
He read Section of Article Xxx. of the
present Constitution, and then read the
corresponding article of the Constitution
OF 1853, which is different. In the latter
the Capital could be removed by vote of
two-Uhirds majority of the Legislature.
L nder that Constitution the matter did
not have TO be submitted to the people.
! he seat OF government was removed to
Vallejo, and atterward to Sacramento,
and its removal was sustained by the Su-
preme Court alter bitter contest. Sec
ton ! of Article XA. is a great change
from the old Constitution, and this change
was meant for something. The members
of the Constitutional Convention meant to
make a change, and so did the Legislators
and the people who voted on it. They
meant that no change should be made i'll
any other way. Ii it had been meant to
be like the old Constitution no change
would have been made; 1t would not have
needed any change. If it had been in
tended TO leave it to the Legislature to act
in a hurry, from pique or any other
reason, as the last one did, or to make
removal whenever it chose, it would not
have been changed. 1t is evident that the
intention was that only an amendment
submitted to the people should remove
the Capital, and not resolution like this
one. There was only one way, and that
is clearly laid down.
1t was, he said, intended to produce de-
liberation. The Constitution provides
that any law must be read three times
before its passage, and that the Governor
snail have ten days after its passage in
which to sign it. The testimony before
the court emphasizes in the strongest
manner the rule and the action OF the
Legislature shows the necessity OF it.
This piece of shreds and tatters, pasted
together, part written in ink and part in
pencil, in inaccurate language, written in
haste, intended to state that San jose
shall pay q 100000 in case the Capital is
removed there, but through the misuse Of
language not making it a condition that
she should Go so, shows the necessity Of
the rule. The deliberation of tWo-thirds
OF the members, with The usual procedure
of passing a law, would not have al
lowed such inaccuracies to escape notice.
lie contended that any other section
could have been amended under Section
Is AILlClt ~ ILL.,, Jut lLilS lJdhl6l CONllu
not. For instance, take Section of Article
Kill; he knew from his own expert
ence that there were no more bitter fights
than those on the taxation OF mortgages.
If that section contained provision that
it could only be amended by vote OF
three-iourths of the Legislature, or three
1Ourths of the Legislature and three
tourths of the people, viii it be contendod
that it could be amended by striking out
that provision, or in any other way?
Ii Section =, Article Nil, the one re-
garding tho Railroad Commission, con-
tanned the provision which was proposed
in the Constitutional Convention, that it
should only be amended by calling a new
Constitutional Convention, would it be
contended that it could be amended by
proceeding under Section |, Article
ANIII.? All the parts Of the Constitu-
ton must be made effective and harmon
ize, and must be made equally strong.
How can this he effected in any other way
than under this rule? Shall we make
Section l, Article M, dead letter, and
say to the people; 1T is true the Con-
stitution throws a safeguard around the
removal of the Capital, so that it shall not
be carted around on wheels at the pleas
ure OF each succeeding Legislature, or
like the Supreme Court is; but when that
was done it was simply to fool you. to
cheat the people OF the State, to blind
them to the real state of the case?" Why
not put in another provision, that when
two-thirds of the Legislature, blinded by
anger and prejudice, wish to remove the
Capital they can do so?
He quoted the case of the Los Angeles
charter, which was adopted under the
Constitution, with a provision for a Police
Court. The Constitution provides that the
Legislature shall establish inferior courts
Notwithstanding the Constitution au-
thorized Los Angeles to adopt charter.
4 Il. l. /
not adopt 1t with that provision The
Constitution cannot be nulIiied bv a
resolution. Until the Supreme Court re-
verses the decision in the People VS.. Cole.
this amendment cannot stand.
But suppose it should be adopted under
Section /, Article XVIII, no law or reso-
luton was passed submitting it to the
people. 1t is not commended by the other
side that the Legislature did pass any law
specifying how or when il should be sub
mitted. There is a decision of the SUI
preme Court that the provision for read
ing law three times meant lust what il
says. II was COntended that reading nv
title the first and second times was suf-
1icent, but the court decided otherwise
II would require trained legal mind
one accustomed to make wrong appear
right. 10 persuade the ordinary mind that
il is not necessary to follow the course the
Constitution prescribes. There is not a
schoolboy who would not saw that in
passing a law the Legislature should spe-
city how it should be carried into effect.
Mir. Morehouse tries to break the effect of
this by saying that in 1888 a general law
was passed. THAI cannot apply to this
The Constitution prescribes how; for good
reasons the people might want more or
less time to consider some proposition
Such a law is in violation OF the Constitu-
ton, because it delegates legislative au-
thority, as stated by Cooley in his Con
stitutional Limitations" He quoted from