The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-05-10
THOSE FOLSOM ROAD BONDS
FUDGE GADDIs OF YoLo RULES
AGAINST THEM.
He Holds That Supervisors Cannot
Tax Cities for Road
Purposes.

Last week Superior Judge Gaddls OIL
Yolo County presided in Judge John-
sons court when the case OF y f.
Wright against the Supervisors OF tllls
county was heard. 1t was an actlon "
restrain the Supervisors from Iurlh7L
proceedings in the matter of the sale Oh
the Folsom road bonds, and was a
friendly one. to determine their Vahd-
jty. Judge Gaddis holds that the pond
issue was illegal, and the case Will now
he appealed to the Supreme Court. Fol
lowing is
JUDGE GADDIS' DECISION.
Charles Z. Wright VS.. the County OF
Sacramento ct al.
This is an agreed case, the purpose OF
which is to obtain a decision on WHICH
to base an appeal to the supreme court
The facts are lengthy, and are set out
in detail in the submission Of the con-
troversy, and need not be stated here'
but those which are essential 10 the
points to be decided may be summar-
lied as follows:
On the 26th day of October, 1891, the
Board Of Supervisors Of the County OF
Sacramento made an order calling Tor
a special election to be held throughout
said county on the 4th day OF Decem-
Der, 1897, to submit to the people OF
that county the question of issuing
bonds in the sum of $4,000, for the
purpose of improving and macadamiz-
ing the highway between the city OF
Sacramento and the town Of Folsom, in
the County of Sacramento.
At the election so held the vote was
1on hnndG Wner6-
upon the Board of Supervisors proceed
ed to pass an ordinance providing Tor
the levy of an annual tax in sacramento
County sufficient to provide for the pay
ment of the interest as it became Que on
said bonds, and to constitute sinking
fund to pay the principal of such IN
debtedness at its maturity. There-
after the bonds were issued, and on Feb
ruary IL, 1898, were sold to n. W. Har-
ris & Co.
Charles E. Wright, the plaintiff here
in, is an elector and resident of the city
of Sacramento, and owns taxable prop
erty therein The city Of Sacramento is
a municipal corporation, and is included
within the limits of the County OF sac
ramento The County Of Sacramento
will, unless it is otherwise judicia1ly de-
termined, proceed to assess and levy an
annual tax on the property of plalntlfl
and other property within the limits OF
the city of Sacramento, with which to
pay, each fiscal year, the interest then
accrued on said bonds and a proportion
of the principal thereof. The plaintift
contends that the bonds are invalid and
void, on the ground, inter ALA, that a
Board of Supervisors has not the power
to levy and collect a tax for county road
purposes on property situated in mu-
nicipality within a county.
It appears that at the last session OF
the Legislature an Act was passed di-
recting the building Of the road in ques-
ton, and providing for the appointment
of commissioners to supervise the work,
and requiring them to report in detail
the result of their labors to the next
Legislature, as a means Of providing
the Legislature with model and guide
in the consideration of necessary high
way legislation.
On the strength of this Act, counsel
seem to be disposed to contend that the
highway has become a State institution.
Such, however, is not the case. The
Act cuts no figure in the consideration
of this case, and if it amounts to any
thing at all it is only in so far as the
appointment of a commission is con-
cerned to furnish the next Legislature
with proper data respecting the cost
etc, Of constructing highways.
There is no provision anywhere max
ing any appropriation to pay for the
work out of State funds, nor making tbs
road a State charge, and if it were to be
held that the Act had altered the status
of the highway by taking it out Of the
supervision of the Board of Supervisors
of the county of Sacramento and plac'
ing 1t in the hands of the State Of Cali
fornia, thereby making it a State in.
stitution or a State charge, then the
action Of the Board Of Supervisors d
Sacramento County in issuing bonds fol
such State institution would certainly
be unauthorized and nullity.
It was said lin People VS.. Marir
County, 103 Cal. 224) that Gin strict
ness all public highways belong to the
State" and while this is now the I'm.
questioned law Of this State, 1t wa:
never intended by the Legislature OF
by the courts that the supervision ant
control of public highways was to bt
taken from the counties in which they
are situate, which have paid for anC
kept in repair those roads from pub
lie county funds derived from public
county taxation.