The record-union., 1894-01-19
POLICE COURT MIDDLE.
Habeas Corpus Proceedings in the
Case of Ed Rand.
Judge Catlin Listens to Arguments of
Counsel and Takes the Case
Under Amusement.

y
The proceedings are for the purpose OF
testing the claim of Judge Buckley that
he is still Police Judge. Rand's attor-
news were L. C. Hart, Clinton l.. White
and City Attorney Brown, while the
Sheriff was represented by A. l.. Hart,
w. A. Anderson and Assistant District
Attorney Jones.
The petition of Rand sets forth that the
new charter having abolished Judge
Buckley's office, he had no legal author
ity 10 sentence Rand, and therefore prays
that the Sheriff be ordered to discharge
Rand.
Z. c. Hart read the petition and then
argued as follows:
"That the charter adopted by the peo-
pie OF Sacramento in 1897, and ratified by
the Legislature in 1893, abrogated and re-
realed as an entirety the old charter:
That municipal court was ali essential
part of the system OF municipal govern
ment, and that the trainers OF the ConSli-
tuition intended that particular charac-
ter of laws 10 wit: municipal charter IN
volving a complete system OF municipal
government, including judicial system,
should be made by the Legislature In the
manner prescribed by Section of Article
XI. of the Constitution.
"rhat it was not intended by the
trainers of the organic law OF the state
that in order to confer jurisdiction and
power upon a municipal court 1t was
necessary fer the Legislature TO do so by
a law regularly passed in the shape OF
bill, to he read three several times III each
house of the Legislature, and signed by
the Governor, but that the adoption OF
a charter providing for municipal court
in pursuance OF Section OF Article IL. OF
the Constitution, was all that is necessary
and required TO establish such a court,
and invest it with power and jurisdiction,
and to abolish any municipal court exist
ing previously"
He read the portion of the charter de-
fining the duties OF the City Justice who
was to succeed the Police Judge.
A. L. Hart, of counsel for the Sheriff,
said that it was hardly necessary to enter
into an argument on the decisions OF the
Supreme Court. This court would not
feel disposed to overrule such decisions.
The Constitution, he said, was plain
and unambiguous. 1t provides for char
ters, but eXcepts the power TO form jul
dicial offices, and preScrlbeS methods Tor
forming them, independent Of charters.
No other power exists than that vested IN
the Legislature. There may be an appa-
rent conflict in powers-the charter is un-
derstood to be, and is, form of law of
the municipality, and the people may
provide and designate what constitutes
It's tribunals. In the Constitution, as well
as in charters, there is power TO create
and wisdom 10 execute. The power to
control Is often reserved TO the Legislat-
ure.
The Constitution recognizes and re-
serves the right to the Legislature, which
meets every Two years, to alter and
amend laws which are found TO be use
less, mex pedient or imperative, and,
while conierring upon cities the right TO
establish charters, has, in another way,
provided for establishing Judicial courts. Z
Ii recognizes the necessity of establishing
Justices Courts, and the various necessi-
ties of administering justice. This ne
cessitates action by the Legislature,
which alone exercises the right. 1t
would be strange if the power to deter
mine what should be the jurisdiction of
courts should be given to the people. 1t
is presumed that when the Legislature
meets, it will submit to the lawyers Of
the judiciary Committee the question Of
what experience has proved TO be the
best. The Legislature must certainly
know better what would be proper courts
than the people in their primary capacity
can.
The speaker believed it is wisdom on
the part OF the people to simply provide
the general limitations Of power and
which Justice must be administered in
the courts. Even in the Constitution the
people could not foresee the necessities of
the Police Court or determine its juris-
diction. They should be fixed by the
body having power to amend or change
them as the growth and necessities OF the
people change.
1t was not the intention of the trainers
OF the Constitution, he said, to make it
unyielding in fixing the methods and
status of the courts. a mere resolution
of the Legislature is not means of fixing
them by law. Two sections of the Con-
stitutiOn independently cover the point
There is no question but that the attempt
of the people TO abolish the Police Court
is a futile one.
The Legislature, said he, has power to
fix the powers, duties and responsible
tiles of courts, and alone has power to
abolish them. The power to create carries
with it the power to abolish. Ii the
courts mean what they say, the Legis-
lature has power to create and 10 abolish,
and the new charter cannot repeal the
provisions of the old law establishing the
Police Court. The force and effect which
the charter has is derived from the people
it is not derived from the Legislature
When the Legislature acts 1t must be un-
der the power derived from the Constitu-
ton and under its prescribed forms.
This charter. be said, IS not an Act of
the Legislature. If the court SHOULD sus-
tain the position of opposing counsel. it
would destroy the section OF tie Consti-
tuition which prescribes its methods and
powers. The Constitution, while con-
ferring power on the people to frame a
charter, expressly limits and prescribes
the method of doing it. The Code of Civil
Procedure provides for the jurisdiction
of Police Courts. The charter would con-
fer that power on the people, primarily to
abolish them.
w. A. Anderson here stated, in answer
to a question by Judge Catlin, that the
18th, 5lst and 56th California Reports had
decisions defining the civil Jurisdiction of
the Police Court under the codes.
Continuing, General Hart said that the
Constitution should be so construed as TO
give effect to all its provisions, and when
there was an apparent conflict, so con-
strued as not TO destroy one of them.
No express power, he said, is given to
the people to transfer the powers and
duties OF one court to another-that would
be delegation of power which the Con-
stitution gives the Legislature to do by
law. If the people cannot fix powers
duties. ETC., the people cannot destroy
them, and cannot prevent Judge Buckley
from exercising his functions as Police
Judge.
Assistant District Attorney J. Charles
Jones said General Hart had covered the
ground fully in his able argument. He
read Article l., Section y, of the Consti-
tuition, and said that at that time there ex
listed a law establishing Police Courts
which had since that time been decided
by the Supreme Court to be not incon,-
patible with the Constitution. lie quoted
from the decision in the Oakland case
and read Section IL of Article XXII. of
the Constitution, which states that ''all
laws relative to the judicial system of
this State shall be applicable to the iu-
dicial system created by this Constitution
until changed by legislation" The new
-.Lnr.or Ia Snid undartalcoS Ia .rnlnrc-s