The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-06-20
NOT A PARALLEL CASE.

The San Jose Mercury has found
mares nest and in great jubilation an
nounces that the San Jose case in the
Capital removal proceedings is practi-
cally won, because the Supreme Court of
Washington has decided an issue that the
Mercury thinks parallels the California
case. But the Mercury is all wrong, as
usual.
According to its statement bill
charged the Attorney eneral of Wash
ington with a duty. He refused to per-
form it on the ground that the bill was
not passed by the Legislature as the Con-
stitution requires.
The Supreme Court holds that as the
enrolled bill on file in the State archives
is regular on its face it will not permit the
respondent to 60 behind the record to
show that the bill was not regularly
passed-that is, an enrolled bill the court
holds to be the "a final record" which,
when filed and recorded, imports abso-
Lutte verity-and this the Mercurg de-
clares fits the Capital removal case ex-
actly, and, being the law, will probably
be so announced by our own Supreme
Court, and thus the legal contest will be
settled in favor of San Jose.
But the cases are not parallel. In the
California case the vital claim is that,
conceding the proposed amendment to
have been regularly passed; conceding,
for arguments sake, that every require
ment to legality Of passage was observed,
the thing on its face is not the proper con
stitutional means to be employed to effect
change in the Constitution regarding
the location of the seat of government.
That is to say, if no effort were made to
go into the record to show that the pro-
posed amendment was not regularly
passed, yet it is not capable of doing
that it declares is its purpose, and it is
not, therefore, measure with vitality,
and should not be promulgated.
In the Washington case the law direct
ing the Acknowledgement to do certain
thing, passed and was enrolled, fled and
promulgated as law. In the California
case the steps taken are to prevent pro-
mitigation and action under the measure.
because it is not the proceeding which
must be had to effect the object which it
purports to accomplish.
In short, it is not the proceeding which
the Constitution requires at the hands of
the Legislature in order to effect submits
sion to the people of the question of Cap
ital removal. If there were no effort to
go behind the instrument certified to the
Secretary of State as passed. we repeat,
no attempt whatever to establish the fact
that 1t recites untruth regarding the regu-
larity ofthe steps necessary to passage, still
the question that is vital, and that deter
mines the main issue in the legal contro-
versy is, 'is the instrument purporting
TO be a proposed amendment for re-
moval of the seat of government, such
legislation as the Constitution commands
must be had, in order to accomplish in
IN part, or at all, the removal of the Capt.
tal?"
1t will be observed that the Washing
ton case is a totally different one. If the
Attorney General of Washington had re-
fused to do as the Act of the Legislature
commands, on the ground that the Act
was in excess of the constitutional author
4
power to direct action by him, then the
case would be nearer that of the California.
The Washington case, therefore, does
not touch the quick of this California
case, and cuts no figure in the one main
issue, to wit: Can constitutional amend
ment to effect Capital removal be sub
mitted except as and in the form the Con-
stitution itself requires and directs?