The record-union., 1893-06-23
THE CAPITAL REMOVAL DECISION.


mento, and against the midnight
scheme of the Capital removalists. The
decision is based on precisely the grounds
the RECORD UNION took the morning of
publication after the carrying out of the
legislative conspiracy. In short, the
court holds, as we then declared, that
the Constitution governs the Constitu-
tlon"; that all its parts must be con-
strued together, and that where there is
a specific provision for the accomplish
ment of thing. such provision super
sedes the general provisions of the Con-
stitution having reference to the same
matter.
In detail, however. the decision of the
court is to the following effect: That the
remedy sought-injunction- a proper
one; that while the action of the Senate
in refusing Senator Hart the right to be
correctly recorded as to his vote was un-
dignifed, sharp practice, and unjust. the
court cannot go behind the face of the
record, and must consider the removal
resolution as passed, though by the vote
OF the man who was opposed to it. The
whole proceeding was characterized by
indecent haste in both houses. The
omission by the Assembly of certain
words from the removal resolution as it
passed the Senate, was not a material
error or irregularity, and did not destroy
the identity of the resolution.
The court then comes to what it con-
siders the vital issues in the case, and
holds that to attempt removal of the seat
OF government by amendment resolution,
under Article XVIII. of the Constitu-
ton, is ineffective, because every pro-
vision of the Constitution must be given
force and effect, if possible, and in the
event of irrecOncilable conflict between
general and special provisions, relating
to the same subject matter, the special
provisions will prevail.
Section of Article XVIII. provides for
the submission of amendments to the
Constitution by resolution passed by
two-thirds vote in each house of the
Legislature, and by submission to the
vote of the people, at such time and after
such publication as may be deemed ex-
pedient This is the general provision
for amending the Constitution. If the
resolution so passed is submitted to the
people and adopted, we should have the
anomaly of the Constitution declaring
San Jose to be the Capital while the
actual seat of government would remain
at Sacramento, because the specific pro-
vision of the Constitution relative to
Capital removal, Section l of Article
Xxx, as recited, makes Sacramento
the permanent seat of government until
"a law changing it is passed as pro-
vided, and is submitted to the vote of the
people of the State and adopted by them.
The resolution as passed and attempted
to be submitted to the people is not a law
within the meaning of the Constitution.
because none of the essentials for the
erection of law enter into it, such as in
PRODUCTION, reading, printing, passage
and approval by the Executive or vote
overriding his veto. While reading a
bill on three several days may be dis
penseG with, printing of a bill cannot be
avoided-in that respect the provisions of
the Constitution are mandatory.
Further, it was necessary for the Iegis-
lature by a two-thirds vote of each house
to provide regulations for the submission
of the proposed amendment to the vote of
the people. This mandatory provision of
the Constitution was not complied with.
Again: Under Article XVIII. of the
Constitution a submitted amendment
may be adopted at a special or any cleo
ton by the majority vote of the electors
voting thereon. Under Article Xxx. it il
required that proposition to remove the
seat of government must receive a ma
iority vote of the qualified electors of the
State voting therefor at general election.
Thus, if the whole number of electors in
the State was 27o,0O0 at general election
at least lSl, ,00l must vote in favor of the
change in order to carry it. Thus the
trainers of the Constitution hedged about
this removal question with regulations
and safeguards against hasty and ill-ad-
vised action. Had they been gifted bv
the spirit of prophecy. they could not
have provided with greater care against
the very contingency that has here
arisen.
Further: No law was passed submit
ting the proposed amendment to the vote
of the people-thst is, no special Act was
passed providing when and how the pro-
posed amendment should be passed upon.
But the defendant contends that the
general Act of 1888, providing for sub
mission of any amendments proposed, is
sufficient for the purpose. The Act of
1888 delegates to the Governor in this
matter the authority to designate the
method Of submitting the amendment,