The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-24
is THE VETO LAWFUL p?
Lawyers Are Divided In Opinion
Over the Matter

a number of lawyers differ with Attor-
ney Bergin in his opinion that the Mayor
has not the right to veto the tax levy of
81 % recently adopted by the Solid Eight
OF the Board of Supervisors.
In speaking on the subject yesterday At
torney A. P. Van Duzer said:
II the Board of Supervisors has the power to
ignore the Mayors veto, why cannot they abol-
ish the Auditor or any other officer that stands
between them and the treasury? The opinion
OF Mr.. Bergin, as published in The CALL, in
which he advises the savings banks that the
Mayor be brushed aside, is only reiteration
of what the Southern Pacific attorneys have
been claiming in the fraudulent sale of street
franchises.
The Board of Supervisors must levy the taxes
and they must do 1t on that particular day or
not at all Common-sense ought to have
chance to do something occasionally. Let us
apply little to this proposition. A hundred
things might intervene to prevent the board
from acting on any particular day. Unavoid-
able accidents might prevent quorum. Will
it be contended that it has lost all jurisdiction
to act?
The Supreme Court answered that question
in the case OF the Spring Valley Water Works
VS.. the City and County OF San Francisco, 80
California Reports. p. 2S6. 1t win be remem-
bered that the board passed an ordinance on
the last day of February, 1882 fixing water
rates for the year ending June. 1890. Section
L of article XIV of the constitution is as fol-
lows, after providing that the rates for water
to wit: "Such ordinances or resolutions shall
be passed in the month of February of each
year, to take effect on the first day OF July
thereafter"
The ordinance passed in February, 1899.
above referred to, was not the one desired by
the Spring Valley corporation. Whereupon It
brought suit, obtained an injunction and
asked for a decree declaring the ordinance
void and commanding the board to pass an
other one. February went by and summer
passed into autumn, and 1t was not until
January, 1890, that the Supreme Court rem
deEed its decision on the appeal taken in the
case. In that decision they declared that the
ordinance passed was totally void and COM
manded the board to frame and pass another
ordinance fixing rates for the year ending
June 30, 1890, and this was eleven months
otter the time in which the constitution says
the board shall pass act.
II anything is settled in law it is that when
the law directs thing to be done on certain
date the act required may be done at a subse-
quent time as of the day named, or, as ex-
pressed in legal phrase, nunc pro tune.
the next point made by Mr.. Bergen is that
section SO of the consolidation act is repealed
by section 3114 OF the Political Code, as
amended by the last legislature Now the
only amendment to that section ever made
was to change the time of the levy from the
third Monday in June to the same date in Sep
TENDER. Yet the Mayors signature has been
required to these orders.
1t is very evident that the Legislature did
not intend that section 3714 of the Political
Code should repeal any part of the section of
the consolidation act quoted II they did
they would have said so. The law does not
allow the repeals of statute by implication.
''If the two statutes are repugnant the court
must reconcile them. if possible" column
might be filed with extracts from decisions of
our Supreme Court showing that they have
established the doctrine-if anything can be
established-that laws can only be repealed in
two ways. First, by so declaring a repeal in
the act. and, second, when the two acts are so
inconsistent that the courts cannot reconcile
them, and the manifest intent is apparent that
the later act was intended to take the place OF
the first.