The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1896-01-24
COUNTY GOVERNMENT act
Another Attack on the COnSti-
tuti0nality of the Measure
GOODBYE TO 4-YEAR TERMS
The Bill Introduced After the Fiftieth
Day of the Session
The Hatter Is Pending In the Supreme Court
Of Sacramento County-The
Points Involved
GOODBYE TO 4-YEAR TERMS

Oikl Oh 1000 Iulb ldSt pOlub TdlScu Is
the entire act is invalid from the fact that
II was not introduced within the constitu-
tional limit of fifty days from the opening
of the session, and it is regarded by the
few attorneys who have seen the brief in
the case that it is the strongest that has
yet come up. District Attorney Donnell
yesterday received copy of the brief from
the district attorney of Sacramento county,
asking him to examine the same and to
give him the benefit of any suggestions
that he could make. Major Donnell, Mr..
Holton, Mr.. James and the other deputies
went over the document last evening.
Should this act be declared unconstitu-
tional the act of 1891 would govern, and
this would of course knock out the four
year terms. For this reason anything af-
fecting its validity causes flutter among
the officeholders throughout the state, and
the progress of this case will be followed
with much interest. The uneasiness among
the officers interested is increased from the
fact 4hat almost every act, the constitution
tionality of which has been questioned, has
been knocked out by the courts-in fact
when the matter is discussed it is COM
mon remark that the legislature transacted
its business in such loose and careless
manner tudt udruly Il SlIlRle O1o Oh It's dctS
would stand if attacked by able attorneys.
The case in which the question of the va
lidity of the county government law of
1898 is involved, now before the superior
court of Sacramento county, is that of the
county of Sacramento VS.. the H. S. Crocker
company. The action was brought on be-
half of the county named to recover judg-
ment for the sum of $1,000, alleged to have
been illegally paid to the defendant, to-
gether with an additional sum as penalty
for the withholding of the same. The de-
PENDANT has demurred to the complaint
and in their demurrer raise the various
questions of law affecting the county gov
eminent law mentioned. The general
point is that the county of Sacramento has
not the capacity to sue or to maintain the
action on the ground that The act providing
for the system of county government now
being operated under is void or unconsti-
tutional. In substance the demurrer con-
tains the following statement and argu-
ment:
1.-THE contention of the defendant being
that neither the county or the district at
torney has any authority to sue for the re-
covery of money paid out upon the order
of the board of supervisors, unless such
authority is found in section 8 and other
provisions of the act entitled An Act to Es-
tablish Uniform System of County and
Township Governments approved March
"a, 1898. The so-called county govern
ment bill originated in the assembly dur
ing the Thirtieth session of the legislature.
The particular objections to the act are !:
That the bill embracing it was not intro
duced into either house of the legislature
until more than fifty days from the COM
mencement OF the session at which it was
acted upon; that it was not read on three
several days in the assembly, nor was the
constitutional provision governing such
matters suspended; that it was not printed
and read at length with the amendments
thereto at any time in the assembly; that it
was not printed and read at any time with
the amendments thereto in the senate !;
that having been transmitted to the senate
and acted upon there, by amendments and
otherwise, and returned to the assembly. it
was not then printed and read at length
with the senate amendments thereto; that
1t is not uniform in its provisions in that
by section 81 of said act the number and
title of the various officers of the various
counties are enumerated; and in section
90 of said act it is provided that the elect
i've officers shall hold Office for terms of
four years, while In section 40 of said act
1t is provided that in counties of the eighth
class such officers shall hold their offices
for the term of two years only"
After discussing the question of the
variety of evidence involved and the pro-
priety of raising the question of the con-
stitutiDnality of an act upon demurrer in
. case like the one before the court, coun-
eel for the defendant continues his state
ment and argument:
1.-THE thirtieth session of the legislature
commenced on the second day of January,
1898. On the 9th of January, 1898, bill
entitled An Act to Amend Section 165 of
an Act Entitled TO Establish a Uniform
System of County and Township Govern
ments.; approved March 81. 1891, was in
troduced in the assembly. Nothing further
was done in relation to the matter until the
I'd of March, 1S93-fifty-nine DAYS after
the commencement of the session when
the committee on county and township
governments reported that it had agreed
upon a substitute for large number of
bills, giving the numbers thereof (includ-
ing Assembly Bill No. IA, but not desig-
mating the title of the substitute. On the
Sth day of March, 1898, upon motion of
a member, Assembly Bill No. IA was taken
up out of order, read the first time, and
made special order for the next day. On
March 9, 1898, the journal shows the fol.
lowing: Special order resumed, Assembly
Bill No. IA, an act entitled an act to
amend section 165 of an act entitled An
Act to Establish Uniform System of
County and Township Governments, ap-
proved March 81. 1891, read second time,
also the committee on county and town
ship governments offered substitute (the
county government blD, entitled An Act
to Establish Uniform System of County
apd Township Governments
"UpOn the subject of the introduction of
substitutes after the expiration of the time
limited, it will be found that in the case of
Attorney General vs.. Detroit and S. Plank
Road Company, So N. W. Rep, the SUI
preme court of Michigan disposes of the
question upon very full discussion, the
seasoning being especially applicable to
this case. the essential feature, of course,
except under special conditions, which do
not exist here, inasmuch as the constitu.
tional provision was not suspended. The
court will observe here that the first time
that the bill was placed before the assem-
bly, was on the 9th day of March, 1898.
And the bill then received attention, went
to the senate. wss3 returned and was again
acted upon; that the legislature adjourned
on the 18th day of March, 1898, and that
one Sunday interviewed. In Schrider VS..
Supervisors, A N. w. Rep. 177-7, the same
question was before the court and decided
adv ersely to the substitute: in Toll vs.
Jerome. 90 N. W. Rep. SIG, the question
was again decided, and the above cited
cases approved, although in this case the
facts induced the court to sustain the bill.
1.-The only theory upon which the county
government bill can be sustained is, that
Il pertains to the same object with such
eIose identity as to be substantially the
same measure. That, however, is not true.
Assembly bill No. "a had but one purpose,
]. g. the regulation of the affairs of coun-
ties OF the third class, and was specifically
~ an amendment to an act passed at a
previous session and approved two years
prior. No person watching the course of
Assembly bill No. "a up to the I'd day of
March, 1893-fifty-nine days after the