The San Francisco call., 1896-03-08
RIGHT TO COLLECT FEES.
Filing Of the County Clerks
Argument Supporting the
Fees Bill.
Large Number of Authorities Cited
to Prove the Law Is
General One.

Respondents brief in the case Of Henry
Miller ct. al. against Charles F. Curry,
the County Clerk was filed in the Supreme
Court yesterday by their attorneys, Del
mas & Shortridge.
Ihls Is test case, and most interesting
one to many City off cials, since it involves
the right of the County Clerk to collect
ices Tor the filing of an answer to pending
suit. In the words of the brief itself:
Ihls is an appeal from judgment of the
superior Court of the City and County of San
francisco, denying appellants application for
as as County Clerk of said City and County. to
hle az answer in pending action without
collecting fees therefor.
The respondent justifies his refusal TO file the
answer because appellants have declined to
pay the Zee, under the provisions of "An act to
esha oilsn ane tees OF county, township and
this State" passed by the Legislature, and
approved on the 2sth day of March, 1895.
Ihere is no question as to the validity OF the
City and County of San Francisco the respond
enps position is correct. The issue having
Deen brought before the lower court by the
pleadlngs, after full argument 1t decided that
the act is general one, operating uniformly
upon all the officers in this State who are
named in it. The sole contention of appellants
Is s. mat It does not apply to the City and County
OF San Francisco.
Respondent cites numerous authorities
in support of the contention that the law
was intended to be. general, and says, in
fact, that
The constitution provides that all laws OF
general nature shall have uniform operation,
and that the Legislature shall not pass local
or Special laws regulating the practice of
courts of justice regulating county and town.
ship business, affecting estates of deceased
persons, minors or other persons under legal
disabilities, prescribing the pow ers and duties
OF officers in counties, cities, cities and eoun-
ties, townships, etc., affecting the fees of any
officer, nor in any other case where a general
law can be made applicable.
There can be doubt that the Iecislaturs
could have made, and did make, this act gem
orally applicable to all cases and to all classes
of which it treats; neither can there be any
doubt that the act itself can be made to snnlv
to all county ana other officers of which Il
treats in this State, and that, without giyins
Its words any other construction than tbeSr
nsuai ana ordinary Interpretation imports
condemn upon hypothetieal and scant av; -
dence the members OF the Legislature of will.
tnI or ignorant transgression of every ona os
the express constitutional lmitations no,eS
aoove. rs maintaiued that legislative intent
was never less samoiguously expressed nor based
upon more sound reasons for its existence.
Another point of Respondents conten.
ton Is that "the legislative intent hased
upon constitutional requirements cannot
De controlled by any rule OF statutory cnn.
struction.' NoA-
This point is amplified to some extsnt
out the entire brief is not lengthy. and he,
yond the large mum Der of authorities cited
put not quoted, the document is onite
pointed, even to the appreciation OF the
iayman. ''o