The morning call., 1893-11-16
POINTS OF LAW INVOLVED.
Both Sides of the Controversy
Are Set Forth.
THE LITTLE SAN JOSE JOKER.
An Array of Counsel Presents the
Constitutional Questions to the
Supreme Court.

SACRAMENTO. Nov. 15.-One of the
capital removal cases, that of the people
ex rel.. Rideout appellant, against Secre-
tary of State Waite. respondent, was
taken Up for argument before the Supreme
Court at 2 O'Clock this afternoon. j. w.
Armstrong and 4. l.. Hart appeared for the
appellant and ID. III. DelmaS and n. Y.
Moreheuse for the respondent
Judge MckuDe begun by making brief
statement of the fact OF the passage of the
removal resolution. Resolution No. %
proposes to amend the constituti on Of the
State and thereby remove tine capital to
San Jose. The closing paragraph pro-
vldes that before the removal shall take
effect the State shall receive donation of
S1.0O0,000 for capital building and of ten
acres of land for a site thereof, to be
approved by the Governor, Secre-
tary OF State ana Attorney General. Sec
ton of article XVIII of the constitution
provides that resolutions may be passed
| by tw0-rhirds vote, submitted 10 the
people, and when it is voted upon by the
people. If majority of votes cast at that
election bs in favor of lt, the amendment
at that moment becomes part Of the con-
stitution of the State. But this S1,00o.000
is to be paid. and the land is to be donated
after the election. The capital cannot go
to San Jose until after certain things are
done; then where will the seat of govern
ment be? Those conditions may not be
complied with on the part of San Jose.
and that would be an element.
Another point made by Judge McKune
was that the payment of S1.O00,0 600 and the
donation of ten acres of land by San Jose
was in the nature of bribe to the voters
of the State. 1t is therefore immoral and
contrary to public policy. The constitu-
tion of the State must be construed and
taken as whole. The constitutional
convention considered that this question
| of capita! removal should be as far re-
moved as possible from litigation or ac-
| tion by the Legislature or by the people
| themselves. Such attempts to remove
| even the capital of a county have caused
! bitter feelings and controversies, have
| caused the importation of ballot box stuff
| ers and have given rise to the greatest of
election frauds. How much more would
this be the case when the question at issue
is the removal of the capital of State
Before law can be made it
must be read three times on differ
ent days and be submitted tn the
Governor. The constitution, in case of
an amendment to remove the capital Of
the State. provides that such an amend
| ment must be carried by two-thirds of all
the voters of the State, not two-thirds of
all the votes cast. In case of an amend
| ment. or any other subject, two-thirds of
all the votes cast are required. Here are
two different articles in which the manner
| of adopting constitutional amendments
are prescribed. The trainers of the con-
sttution inserted these paragraphs pur-
posely. There was deep purpose in the
different manner in which they worded sec
tion of article XVIII and section l of ar
ticle Xxx. it was their intention clearly to
require the assent of swo-thirds of all the
voters of the State to an amendment re-
moving the State capital.
FL. V. Morehouse of San Jose followed
on behalf of the Secretary of State. He
argued that section 1 of article XVIII pro-
yides for amending and revising the con-
sttution. 1t provides how an amendment,
and all amendments to the constitution.
shall be made. Now If an amendment is
carried out under the terms of section / OF
article XVIII the amendment becomes
part of the constitution and amends to that