The record-union., 1896-08-26
The Supreme Court UphOldS the Validity
Of the Act Of March, 1893,
Relating to the Terms of County and
Township Officers.
Rumor That Secretary of State Brown
VIII Refuse to Place Fusion
Electors on the Election Ticket,
Holding That 1t Cannot be Done in
Accordance With Law.

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 25.-The Su-
preme Court to-day handed down de-
cision reversing the action of the Supe-
rior Court in the case of Hale respond
ent, VS.. McGettigan ct al, appellants,
wherein the validity of the Act of Leg
islature passed March 13, 1893, en-
titled AN Act to establish a uniform
system of county and township govern
ments," was involved. The decision
affirms the validity of the Act. and holds
that the term of offices of all county and
township officers is fixed at four years.
The decision, however, does not apply
to San Francisco. according to
Justices Garoutte and Henshaw they
holding that special legislation govern
ing the county and municipal affairs in
San Francisco was and would remain
in its former force without modification
or alteration. The decision is in part as
follows:
This action was brought for the pur-
pose of determining the validity of the
County Government Act, approved
March a, 1893 Statutes of 1898 page
346), and to obtain judgment that the
county and township officers elected un-
der that Act hold their respective offices
FOR the term of four years. A general
demurrer to the complaint was over
ruled by the court, and the defendants
declining to answer, judgment was rem
dered in favor of the plaintiff, from
which the defendants appealed.
"One-It is contended on the part of
the appellants that the Act in question
never became a law, for the reason that
it appears from the legislative journals
ha n
in the Legislature after the expiration
Of fifty days from the commencement
of the session, in contravention of the
provisions of Section ,, Article ". of
the Constitution. The respondent con-
tends, on the other hand, that the en-
rolled bill deposited with the Secre-
tary of State is conclusive of the valid
ity of the Act, and that it is not compe-
tent for the court to go behind this en-
rolled bill for the purpose Of deter
mining whether the Legislature COM
piled with this requirement of the Con-
stitution''
After tracing the history of the Act,
the decision passes upon the conflicting
provisions as follows:
1T is further contended by the appel
lant that the provision in Section 90 of
county officers every four years is either
superseded by a provision in Section
10, that said election shall be every
two years, or, if the latter provision is to
be limited to counties of the eighth class,
that the uniformity of the Act is de-
stroyed and the entire Act must be held
to be unconstitutional.
Whether a statute containing an un-
constitutional provision, with others
which are constitutional, viii be sus-
tanned as to those which are constitu-
tional and held invalid merely as to
those which are not. depends upon the
nature Of the different provisions. in
view of the evident purpose Of the Leg
islature. If the provisions are so inter
dependent that those which are invalid
are to be regarded as the condition
or consideration upon which the others
We're enacted, and it is evident that the
Legislature would not have enacted the
statute except in its entirety. and did
not intend that any part should have
effect unless the whole could be made
operative, the entire statute must be
invalid. On the other hand. if the diff
ferent parts of a statute are severabIe
and independent of each other, and the
provisions which are within the consti-
tptional power of the Legislature are
capable Of being carried into effect after
the void part has been eliminated and
it is clear from the statute itself that
Il was the intent Of the Legislature to
enact these provisions irrespective of