The record-union., 1893-06-10
GENERAL A. |. HARRIS BRIEF.
To be Filed in the Supreme Court in
the Rideout Case.
The Able Counsel's Argument Against
the Validity of the Capital Re-
moval Resolution.

Heople, on relation of y. D. RideouU
against the Secretary of State to restrain
the latter from certifying to the passage
by the Legislature of the so-called con-
stltutional amendment making San Jose
the seat OF government. J. w. Arm
strong, who is of counsel for the plaintiff,
Is also preparing brief for filing with
the Supreme Court:
In the Supreme Court of the State of Cali
lotnla-Ihe people of the State OF California,
on the relation OF y. ID. Rideout, appellants,
vs.. T. u. Waite, Secretary of the State OF Cali
Iornia, responuent-BrIet of \. /. Hart on be-
nail OF appellants.
ON the 1lth day of March, 1898 an amend
ment 10 the Constitution Of the State of Cali
fornia was proposed in the Senate OF said
STATE, said amendment was entitled Senate
Constitutional Amendment No. 23," and by
II the legislature proposed TO amend Section
/ Of Article XA. OF the Constitution of said
Stale, the sole object Of said amendment be-
ing To change The seat OF government from the
city OF sacramento to the city OF San Jose.
Inc amendment was proposed in form and
language as iollOws
The Legislature of the State OF California,
al us thlrueth session, commencing on the 2d
day OF January, A. D., 1893, two-tnirds OF all
The members elected to eacn house of said
legislature voting IN favor thereof, hereby
proposes That section l of Article Xxx. tInis-
celluneout suDJectsj OF the Constitution OF the
follows:
section l. The city of San Jose is hereby
declared TO be the seat OF government of this
Stale and shall 50 remain until changed by
law; but no law changing the seat of govern
ment shall be valid or binding unless the
same be approved ana ratified by u majority
OF the qualified electors OF the State voting
therefor at a general State election under
such regulations and provisions as the Iegis-
lature,by a two thirds vote of each house. may
proVlUe, submitting the question of change TO
the people; provided, that the state shall re-
celVe donation of 4 site of not less than ten
acres and S1,OOO,oO0 before such removal
ha no
State, and the Attorney-General are hereby
authorized to approve said site. and upon the
approval thereof and the payment OF 81 ,0OO,-
OOO lnJo the oLaJe treasury, the Legislature
shall provide for the erection Of the necessary
building and the removal of the seat of gov
ernment."
Two-thirds of all the members elected to
each house voted in favor of said proposed
amendment, and the same was thereafter cor
rectly entered in the journal OF the Senate
win the yeas ana nays taken thereon, but in
the Assembly there were some verbal differ
ences between the amendment as proposed
and adopted, and the amendment as entered
in its Journal
The proposed amendment was not put in
the form of bill; 1t was not printed for the
use OF the members; It was not read on three
several days. The measure was not declared
10 constitute case OF urgency, nor did two
thirds OF either house, by a vote of yeas and
nays, or otherwise, dispense with the prOvis-
ions OF Section 10 of Article ~. of the Con-
stitution. No statute was passed by the Leg
lSlature, either by a two-thirds vote of each
house, or otherwise, providing any regula-
tons or provisions for submitting the ques-
ton of said change to the people, nor for sub
uniting the question of ratifying any law pro
wang ior The change OF the seat of govern
ment of this State from said city of Sacra-
lnento to said city of San Jose.
This action was commenced for the purpose
OF having this court determine, definitely and
finally:
First-Whether the seat of government of
this State can be changed by such a proposed
amendment OF the Constitution.
Second-Whether an amendment proposed
in the manner described is a law within the
meaning OF Section OF Article Xxx. of the
Constitution, and
Ihird-Whether, if it were conceded that
such proposed amendment is a law within
the meaning OF Section 1 of Article * it
could be submitted to the people for ratifica-
ton without an Act OF the legislature regu-
larry passed by a two-thirds vote OF all the
members elected 10 each house, making regu-
lutions and provisions Tor the submission of
said question to the people.
The Judgment of the lower court was in
favor of the defendant. and this appeal is
taken upon the judgment roll.
1t is contended by the appellants that the
seat OF government of this Stale cannot be
changed by an amendment of the Constitution
proposed in pursuance of, and in the manner
prescribed by. Section l, Article Xxx. of the
Constitution; that, while II is competent for
the Legislature TO propose, aud for the people
10 ratify an amendment OF any provision OF
the Constitution of the State, including Sec
ton or Article M, yet. 50 long as said Sec
ton l Of Article NN. remains in its present
form, unamended, it presCribes the only
be changed; that such a change can only be
made by law, and cannot be accomplished by
proposed amendment under Section l of
Article NNIII.; that the law providing forsuch
change must be regularly introduced by bill
and, unless u case of urgency is regularly de-
clared by twO-thirds vote of the house in
which 1t is pending, the bin must lie printed
for the use OF the members and read on three
several days in each house, and must receive
the approval OF the Executive; that such a
Dill, Wheu regularly passed into a law, does
not become valid or binding until approved
and ratified by majority OF the Qualified
electors of the State voting therefor AT a
general State election, under such regulations
and provisions as the Legislature, by n two
thirds vote of each house. may provide sub
hitting the question Of change to the people;
that Tie seat OF government at sacramento is
an accomplished and established fact made
SO by the provisions Of Section l of Article
y y. OF the Constitution; and, while the pro-
visions Of the Constitution, with reference to
the method of removal. may be amended the
fact of the existence OF the seat OF government
at Sacramento cannot be changed so long as
the Constitution remains as il is, except in
the manner provided by said section: that he
proposed amendment under consideration is
lnN5thd upon It's Ece, even conced1ng that the
seat of governmt Mt may lie changed III the
manner adopted al the recent session Of the
Legislature; that said amendment couples the
proposed change with conditions which, IN
der all circumstances would invalidate it for
il places the change OF tue seat OF government
not upon any necessity or policy proposed and
ratified by the Legislature, or 10 be finally
adopted or ratified by the people. but upon an
option which ultimately depends upon the
conduct Of the city of san Jose alone.
The first and main question to be constd
cred upon this appeal involves the power of
the Legislature and OF the people to change
the seat OF government of this state by an
amendment OF the constitution proposed and
ratified In the manner prescribed by Section l
of Article XVIII. 1t must be cOncede l. IN the
outset, that, while the people may adopt any
amendment Of the Constitution which is Dr,-
posed 10 them in the manner prescribed bv
the instrument ITSELF neither the Legislature
nor the people, in making any change can
disregard the provisions which limit ana pre-
scribe their power, and that the va idity or
invalidity Of the proposed amendment under
consideration, depends upon the true con
struction OF Section l Of Article XVIII and
Section of Article XX. of the State Consti-
tuition.
II the proposed change can be ACCOMPLISHED
in the manner attempted at the recent session
OF the Legislature, without any violation of
any OF the provisions of the Constitution the
proposed constitutional amendment, If it
were submitted to the people at an election
authorized by law for such purpose and if AT
said election, il should receive the support OF
n majority OF the electors voting thereon
would become a part OF the Constitution and
the seat of government of this State as the
result thereof. would, ipS0 lure, be removed in
the manner therein provided. II, on the CON
trarv the attempted change OF the seat Of
government. in the manner prescribed bv
fbis proposed constitutional amendment is
repugnant to any provision OF the Constitu-
fi6n ana Is, therefore, invalid, there could b
no authority for submitting the question 10 a
1,ota of the people, and, hence, the proposed
amendment could not, under any Circum-
srancss become part of the Constitution.
~ before suggested, the validity Of the
,,ro,5osed amendment depends for its solution
mainly upOn two provisions oil tine state Con-
q st't1tion viz: = ctiOn of Article Nv III and
sctio,1 I of Article XN. Section l of Article
SN-TTT nrescrlbes. in general terms the man
ner in which the Constitution may be amend