The record-union., 1893-11-16
LEGAL HEAVYWBIGHTS.
Yesterdays Arguments in the Two
Capital Removal Cases.
Noted Lawyers Differ In Their Inter-
probation of Constitutional and
Statutory Provisions.


The Supreme Courtroom at the State
Capitol was crowded yesterday after
noon, chiefly with lawyers. drawn thither
by desire to listen to the arguments in
the cases of n. d. Rideout and II. p.
Livermore against Secretary of State
Waite, and known as the Capital removal
eases.
The first one taken up was that of
Rideout VS.. Waite, in which the Secretary
of State is the respondent The appellant
was represented by a. L. Hart and j. w.
Armstrong, and the defense by H. V.
Morehouse and d. NJ. Delmas of San
Jose.
Judge McKune opened the argument
by referring to the resolution on which
action was taken by the Legislature. the
object of which was to secure the re-
moval of the State Capital to San Jose.
He argued that there is a provision in the
resol ution which calls for the donation to
the State of Sl,000,0OO before the Capital
can be removed to San Jose, which reso-
luton it is proposed to make part OF the
Constitution of the State by that pro-
amendment thereto.
Unless whatever action is taken is
clearly within the provisions of the Con-
stitution, such action is null and VOID.
Counsel cited cases in other States to
show that the letter OF the Constitution
must be followed, while the resolution
passed by the Legislature provides for
the doing of various irrelevant things,
some OF which might or might not be
done at all. If for no other reasons, the
resolution should fail for this reason.
The offering OF million dollars for the
location of the Capital at San Jose, said
Judge Mckune, was in itself IN the ma
ture of bribe, by appealing to the voters
to be influenced in their action by the
prospect of securing employment through
the expenditure of that vast sum Of
money. The use of money in such a
manner would be clearly immoral, and
the court would he believed, have to re-
ject it on the ground of principle.
Counsel called attention to the fact that
the law provides that whatever amend
ment is adopted by the Legislature must
be submitted to the people by the Legis-
lature in some specific manner, and by
the Legislature only which adopted such
amendment. No subsequent Legislature,
he contended, could do this under the
provisions of the Constitution.
The trainers of the present ConStitu-
ton were careful to remove as far as pos
sible from agitation the matter of the re-
moval of the State Capital. The neces-
sity for this is seen in the trouble and
contention that usually enSueS whenever
an effort is made to change even a county
seat 1t was therefore wise that the Con-
stitutional Convention threw such safe
guards about the Capital.
Judge McKune explained that Section
l of Article XX. of the Constitution de-
clared Sacramento to be the seat of gov
sfsafN
lished here; the necessary buildings and
all the machinery of the State Govern
ment were located here. Therefore it was
provided that the seat OF government
should so remain until changed by
law" which means statute He also
contended that the Constitution further
required that the votes of two-tbirds of
all the qualified voters in the State would
be necessary to amend the Constitution
in the matter of the removal of the seat of
government. In other ordinary matters
only two-thirds of those voting on a def
mite proposition would be required to
carry 1t.
A SAN JOSE CHAMPION.
II. V. Morehouse of San Jose followed
on behalf Of the respondent. He said the
whole question hinged on the interpreta-
ton that might be given to Section of
Article XVIII. and Section l of Article
Xxx. Of the Constitution. He quoted the
two sections at length, and argued that
the passage Of an Act. contended bv the
other side as being necessary in order to
give effect to Section l of Article XX.,
would leave the Constitution just as 1t
was before, merely changing the location
of the State Capital.
On the other hand, Section 1 of Article
XVIII. provides how the Constitution
may be amended or changed, and this is
the only method by which the ConStitu-
fiOn ran bA chanppd or alOaOdna
Mr.. Morehouse then recited the pro
ceedings had in the Senate on the pro-
posed constitutional amendment, also
those of the following Monday, under
which it is claimed Qn the Livermore
case) the amendment did not have the re-
Quired two-thirds vote OF the Senate,
after the record had been corrected. He
also referred to certain omissions in the
amendment as passed by the Assembly,
which he said would be claimed by the
other side as rendering it null and void.
The journals, he said, were the proper
record, and all these are required to show
is that a measure did or did not pass by
the requisite vote. The ENTRY" OF GER
tain things in the journal has no specific
meaning; and counsel called attention TO
the fact that III the Rideout case it was adj
mitted by the plaintiff that the resolution
introduced in the Senate by Seymour
was properly passed by that body and the
Assembly, and that in all other respects
it was regularly passed. This, however,
was not admitted by Livermore in his
suit.
AS to the manner of submitting the
question to the people, counsel held that
law was not necessary, as there is an
Act, passed in 1883, in force which pro-
vides how this should be done, in the
absence of any specific action taken on
that point. he referred to seven amend
ments to the Constitution which he said
had been submitted in this manner and
properly carried. Thirteen constitutional
amendments were passed by the last
Legislature, and all OF them are SUBJ
mitted under the Act OF 1888, referred to.
He com batted Judge Mckune's point
that the identical Legislature which
passes an amendment TO the Constitution
must provide the manner in which the
same is to be submitted. and held that the
debates of the Constitutional Convention
show that any Legislature could do this.
Since the passage of the Act of 1883, mill
ions OF money had been expended under
constitutional amendments which had
been submitted to the people in the same
manner as 1t was proposed to submit the
Capital removal amendment. The valid
ity of some of these amendments has,