The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-04-03

the grant OF power IN the SectlOn or the
Constitution above cited. where the
Legislature is vested with authority
to determine the number of Justices OF
the Peace in each of the political divis-
ions of the State mentioned in it, among
which political divisions cities are in
Guided. We find nothing in Article ".
of the Constitution of this State which
inhibits such legislation"
Section | OF Article VI. of the Consti-
tuition provides: THE judicial power
of the State shall be vested in the Sem
ate, sitting as Court of eachment,
IN the Supreme Court Superior Courts,
Justices of the Peace. and such in
tefior courts as the Legislature may
establish In any incorporated city and
town or city any county 1t will be
observed, from this provision of the
constitution, that Justices of the Peace
are expressly made, by our organic law,
an essential part of the judicial ma
chlnery of the State. Without such jul
dlclal officers, the judicial system. as
provided for by our Constitution. would
De incomplete. 1t became just as i'm
perative duty of the Legislature, up
on the adoption of this Constitution, to
the Peace to be elected throughout the
State and to fix their powers, duties
and responsibilities, as it did to provide
any other necessary piece of Govern
mental machinery that was not found
provided for by some seIf-executing
provision of the organic law. The Con-
stitution itself, in the provision just
quoted. specifically points out the plan
of
What Courts must exist as an essential
part thereof, and then, having in view
the necessity of judicial tribunals for
municipal purposes. in the same sec
ton invests the Legislature with the
discretionary power to establish such
inferior courts as might be deemed nee
essary in any incorporated city and
town, or city and county.
1t cannot be said that the Justices
Courts thus provided for by the Consti-
tuition are municipal courts in the
sense in which Police or Recorders
Courts are understood. Nor does the
mere fact that the Legislature may
give them in Incorporated cities and
towns jurisdiction of offenses growing
out of violations of municipal ordi-
nances make them so. The Constitution
leaves 1T with the Legislature to deter
mine the number of Justices of the
Peace to be elected in townships. incor-
porated cities and towns. and cities and
counties (Section II, Article VI), cities
and towns being here used to designate
political subdivisions of the State other
than townships. But there is nothing
to be found in that instrument which
attempts to say how, or in what man
ner, the Legislature shall determine the
number of such Justices of the Peace
There is nothing in the Constitution
which provides that, in determining the
number of Justices of the Peace for in
corporated cities, etc., the Legislature
shall classify such cities in particular
way for that purpose. In other words
the Constitution has committed to the
Legislature the power of adopting any
method suggested by the legislative
judgment of determining the mum Der of
justices of the Peace the incorporated
cities of the State shall have; and the
Legislature, in the exercise of that pow
er, has fixed upon a classification of
cities for that purpose different from
the classification which it has made
for municipal purposes. And so long
as such a method of classification is
not in conflict with the provisions of
our Constitution inhibiting special leg
islatiOn, it cannot be successfully as
sailed fro m any constitutional stand
point. AS has been said in Bishop VS.
the City of Oakland, supra, the arbi-
trary method of determining the num-
Der of Justices of the Peace in cities
adopted by the Legislature in Section
Of NfT-il T),.Oo Il
constitute local or special legislation
because confined to cities of the popuIa-
ton named therein, as it includes all
the cities of the State having such a
population.
The cases of Darcy VS.. the Mayor and
Common Council of San Jose, 104 Cali
fornia, 6f2, and EX-parte Giambonini
III California, 514 Stockton case)
cited by counsel for defendant in sup
port Of his contention herein, I regard
as not being in point. In the one case
the Legislature ra3 sed an Act requiring
the Mayor and Common Council of all
cities containing a population of not
less than 10000 nor more than -. 600
inhabitants, at it's first regular meet
ing in July of each year. to fix by ordi-
nance the compensation of the police
men of the city at not less than $500
nor more than S125 per month The
city of San Jose came within the pur-
view of this Act, because having pop
ulation within 10000 and %, 900 inhabi-
tants. Such legislation. being for mu-
nicipal purposes, was of course held
unconstitutional because the classitica-
ton therein provided for was arbitrary
and unauthorized, being different from
the classification of incorporated cities
and towns of the State for municipal
purposes by the Act of 1883 So. in the
stockton case. the Act which provided
Tor Police Court in cities having 15,-
C}1 and under $4,000 inhabitants, in
volved a method of classification at
variance with that provided by the
Act Of 1883. In neither case could
1t be maintained that the Act was
| in anywise amendatory of the Act of
1888. Section 1903 of the Code of Civil
procedure does not attempt to classify
! incorporated cities and towns for mu-
nicipal purposes but simply adopts an
arbitrary rule. general in its nature, for
determining the number of Justices of
the Peace to be elected in such cities
and towns, as authorized by Section IL
OF Article VI. of the Constitution.
Fore the foregoing reasons. I am con-
| strained to hold, contrary to the views
OF number of the ablest members of
TINS bar, that the Act of the Legisla-
ture, so far as it relates to the num-
Der of Justices of the Peace to be
elected in Incorporated cities and towns.
having population of 1900 and not
more than $4,000, within which cate
1s-