The San Francisco call., 1896-08-26
THE DECISION.
IN RANK.

IN BANK
Hale, respondent, VS.. McGettigan ct al,
appellants.
This action was brought for the purpose OF
determining the validity of the county govern
ment act, approved March "a, 1898 Statutes
OF 1898, page 346), and TO obtain judgment
that the county and township officers elected
under that act hold their respective offices for
the term of four years. A general demurrer TO
the complaint was overruled by the court, and
the defendants declining TO answer, judgment
was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from
which the defendants appealed.
l. 1t is contended on the part OF the appel
lants that the act in question never became a
law for the reason that 1t appears from the
legislative journals that the bill therefor wss
introduced in the Legislature after the eX-
piration Of fifty days from the commencement
of the session in contravention of the pro-
visions of section 2, article w of the constitu-
tion. The respondent contends, on the other
hand, that the enrolled bill deposited with
the Secretary of State is conclusive OF the
validity OF the act and that 1t is not compe-
tent for the court TO go behind this enrolled
bill for the purpose OF determining whether
the Legislature complied with this require
ment of the constitution; and in support
thereof cites the case of Sherman VS.. Story. 80
Cal, 203, where II was held that the eertlh-
Gates OF the presiding officers OF the two
houses that q bill had been passed was con-
elusive OF the point IN question. 1t is urged
by the appellant in response to this that the
present constitution described certain for
malities to be observed by the Legislature
and certain times at and within which the
steps essential 10 enact statute are 10 be OBJ
served which were not included in the con-
stitution OF 1S49, under which the case of
Sherman vs. Story was decided, and, that un-
less these constitutional requirements for the
enactment of a statute are complied with, an
act passed by the Legislature does not become
q law, and that the journal OF the Legislature
may be examined for the purpose of ascertain
ing whether the act was passed in conformity
with these requirements. 1t is, however, IN
necessary for US to determine in the present
case whether the journal OF either branch OF
the Legislature may under the circumstances
be examined for the purpose of impeaching
The validity OF an act that has been duly en-
rolled and deposited with the Secretary of
State since we are OF the opinion that il does
not appear from these journals that the act in
question wes not ccnstitutionally passed.
History of the Act.
The session of the Legislature al which the
act in question WAS passed commenced jan
uary 2, 1893 Before the expiration of fifty
days from This date eight different bills enti-
tied Gan act to amend AN act 10 establish q
uniform system OF county and township gov
ernments, approved March 81, 1884," and
twenty-nine other bills amendatory of differ
ent sections OF the same act were introduced
in the Assembly. OF the latter Assembly bill
"A WAS entitled an 'tAct to amend section 165
of said act" These bills were referred to the
Committee on County and Towns hip Govern
ment, and on March 2 that committee re-
ported TO the Assembly q substitute for all OF
said bills and recommended its passage and
the subs titute was thereupOn ordered printed.
(Assembly Journal, page S24.) March 8 As
sombly bill "a was read The first time
and placed on file for second read
ing. March this bill was read a
second time, whereupon ''Ihe Committee on
County and Township Government offered a
substitute Qhe County Government Bill), en-
titled, AN act to establish uniform system
of county and township governments
which was read end adopted (Assembly jour-
nal, p. 1O01), and on the same day the Assem-
bly, ordered that the other OF the above bills
that had been referred 10 this committee be
Withdrawn and stricken from the files, ''they
have been embodied in the omnibus county
government bill, now known substitute for
Assembly bill No. 74'' (p. 1908. Various
amendments were thereafter made to the
substitute Tor Assembly bill No. IA and on
March Is it was passed by the Assembly and
transmitted TO the Senate, where ii was after
ward passed by that body.
There can be no presumption that the Leg
islature has disregarded any constitutional re-
quirement in the passage of the statute, and il
the journals are silent upon the observance oi
any constitutional requirement, it cannot be
assumed that such requirement was omitted
by the Legislature. People VS.. Dunn, 80 Cal,
211) II q bill has been in Introduced in either
house within the first fifty days of the session
whatever is proper in the way of amendment
is as admissible after the fifty days as before
and this will include whatever is within tho
purpose or the bill. By the same rules a sub
stitute that is germane to the subject of the
bill may be adopted without violating this
provision of the constitution, since such sub
stitute is in effect only an enlarged amend
ment to the bill for which it is offered (Toll
VS.. Jerome, 101 Mich, 468.) The various bills
for which the substitute in the present
instance was reported, relating to the county
government act OF 1891, some of them pur
porting by their titles TO amend the entire aci
and others to amend certain sections of the
act, and it was within the proper functions Of
the committee to which they were referred fol
consideration 10 consolidate them into one
bill If, in its judgment. it was expedient, and
to report the same q substitute for them all
Such report and substitute, instead of being
the introduction OF new bill, was only bring
ing together before the House in revised form
bills that had already been introduced and re
ferfed to that committee, with a recommends
tion from it for the action by the House which
that committee deemed advisable.
Conflicting Provisions.
q II is further contended by the apIellan
that the provision in section 80 OF the act TO
holding the election of county officers ever,
tour years is either superseded by provision
in section ITO, that such election shall be ever!
two years, or, If the latter provision is to bs
limited to counties of the eighth class. thai
the uniformity of the act is destroyed, and thi
entire act must be held to be unconstitutional
The first 161 sections of the act are general
in their character, prescri bing the duties anC
powers OF the several county and township
officers and are applicable to ali the counties
in the State. BY section 162 the several coun
ties are divided into fifty-three classes, "fo
the purpose OF regulating the compensation o
all officers hereinafter provided for" and IL
the succeeding ifty-three sections the compen
sation OF the officers OF these several classes
fixed. Section 81 of the act designates tht
several Offices of a county, and section 81
those of township. Section so declares:
"All elective county and township officer
except otherwise provided for in this act shall
be elected at the general election to be held ii
November, 1894. and every four years there
after, unless otherwise herein provided, anC
shall take Office at ID O'Clock, meridian, OF
the first Monday after the first day of Januar!
next succeeding their election" Section III
fixes the compensation OF the county anC
township officers in counties of the eight
class, aud is divided into twenty-six subdivi
sions. Subdivision twenty-six is IN the fol
lowing terms:
'.The officers mentioned in section 81 Of thi'
act, except as hereinafter provided. shall bs
elected in the year 1894. and every two year.