The record-union., 1895-03-07

troll of the State, and therefore no money
can be drawn from the State for its use or
benefit.
Is there any one now in the State of
California who can read English who is
prepared to say that an exhibit made by
California will not be under the control
of the Board of Directors appointed by
Count Cornely? And if such exhibit is
made under such rules established by an
other, in what will the exclusive man
agement and control of the State of Cali
fornia consist?
Nor can it be said with any degree of
sanity that an international exposition
projected at the City of Mexico to last
few months. and then to close forever, is
State ins titution of the State of Califor-
MIA. The average citizen may not be
lawyer, but he is not at the same time a
fool and it not unfrequently happens
that lawyers and courts have the most
obscure idea of the meaning of the Eng
lish language. Here is prohibition
against taking money from the State
Treasury for The benefit of any institu-
ton not under the exclusive manage
ment and control of the State as State
institution. An international exposition,
temporary and ephemerous in its charac-
ter, for single occasion only, to last
few months, is projected under the man
agement and control of somebody in the
City of Mexico, the capital of neighbor-
ing republic. 1t Is proposed to take
money from the treasury OF California to
create feature designed to attract gate
money to that international exposition:
and it is expected that the Su-
preme Court of this State will de-
clare that an international exposition
held in Mexico under Mexican manage
ment is under the exclusive manage
ment and control of the State of Califor-
MIA, and not only this, but that the In
ternational Exposition at the City of
Mexico is a State institution. Now, to
be State institution, it must have been
instituted by the State. The words
Estate institution" refer to the genesis of
the institution for whose benefit the
money is asked. When the Supreme
| Court of California decided that it was
constitutional to expend money to make
an exhibit at Chicago it was in effect ad-
mitting that the Worlds Fair held at
Chicago was instituted by the State of
California, for under no conditions could
it have been constitutional to spend
money to create feature OF that exhibi-
ton.
We call the atten ton of the people of
the State of California to this provision OF
the Constitution and to the misinterpre-
tation it has received-an lnterpretion as
grotesque as it is indefensible. If the
obvious meaning of the English lam
guage is to be disregarded, then Cousti-
tutions will cease to be charters of lib
erty; constitutional government will be q
fraud and snare, and the powerful ele-
ments of government which usually have
control of the courts will place just such
Interpretation upon the plain words of
our mother tongue as suits the purposes
of those who desire that their obvious
meaning shall be interpreted away.
We do not hesitate for moment in
making the declaration that there is no
room for honest difference of opinion con-
cerning the unconstitutionality of an
appropriation for a feature of an interna-
tional exhibition 10 be held in Mexico
or under the control of Count Cornely.
Such an international exhibition was not
instituted by the State of California, and
is, therefore, not q State institution. 1t
is not to be under the exclusive manage
ment and control of the State, and there
fore becomes apparent to the meanest ca
pacity that an appropriation for the pUr-
pose of making feature of that exhibi-
ton is unconstitutional. We say that we
do not believe that there is ground for
honest difference OF opinion on this sub
ject. Those who will contend for the
constitutionality of such an appropriation
will be controlled in their conclusion by
their desire, or otherwise be wanting in
the capacity to understand the most obvi-
Gus meaning of the language they speak
and write.
BREAK UP THE LOTTERY GANG.