The herald., 1898-09-08
City Courts and the Charter

City Courts and the Charter
To the Editor of the Los Angeles Herald;
l observe from the report of proceedings
OF the board of freeholders. in your issue
of this morning that 1t has been decided
by the board to make no provision in the
charter fer municipal courts; that Mr..
Var,el. chairman Of the judiciary commit
tee, concluded, after summing up OF
the law, that it would be best to leave this
question to the action of the legislature
as the present laws will soon be amended
and changed so as to make present action
dangerous" Your report further says: I'll
was nater ascertained that the original re-
port of the judiciary committee, including
the question Of police courts. had been
adopted finally"
| This is an important question to the city
of Los Angeles, and 1t should rot be deter
mined hastily. II the beard of freehoiders
and It's judiciary committee are convinced
that Its action in determining not to make
provision for municipal courts is ''darger-
GUS" and that action to that end would
not be dangerous, l presume the board
would "unresolve' the resolution hereto
| fore adopted, for certainly such resolves are
lot like the laws of the Medes and Persians
The general laws now existing relating
| to city courts in Los Angeles are section 10s
of the Code Of Civil Procedure, providing
that in cities havirg 10000 and not more
than 100 900 nhabitants there shall be two
justices of the peace; and the act of the
legislature commonly kriown as the whit
ney act" originally passed in 1885 and
amended in 1891, 1898 and 1895, whereby 1t is
provided that city justices Of the peace in
cities of 10000 and not more than 100000 in
habtants shall hold a police court in said
cities. The act and its amendments define
the jurisdiction of said justices when act
ing In the capacity of police" justices.
While section Of article XI of the con-
stitution of 1879 contained the clause, "a nd
all cha rters thereof framed or adopted by
authority of this constitution shall be sub
ject TO and controlled by general laws
and while section of the same article CON
tained the clause that, a freeholdersi char
ter Shall become the organic law there
Of and shall supersede any existing charter
and all amendments thereof. and all special
laws inconsistent with such charter; and
before the amendment to section permit
ting cities of $500 inhabitants or over to
frame freeholder charters, the suggestion
that a charter provision for police or mu-
nicipal courts might have been justly
termed unnecessary. But since the amend
| ment QS96) to section g. by which the
clause thereof above alluded to was made
TO read, "and cities and towns heretofore
or hereafter organized, and all charters
thereof framed or adopted by authority Of
this constitution shall, except In municipal
affairs, be subject to and controlled by gen.
eral laws; and since section S was
changed so as to read. "shan become the
organic law thereof and sMpersede any ex-
ist!ng charter and all amendments thereof
and all laws Inconsistent with such chair
ter; and since section Sia has been added
| Cis9G to said article XI. providing, in eX-
press terms, that freeholders' charters may
provide "for the constitution. regulation
government and jurisdiction of police
courts, and for the manner in which. the
times at which and the terms for which the
judges Of such courts shall be elected ol
appointed. and for the compe nsation of such
judges and of their clerks and att'ache :
I protest that provision in the charter for
the city of Los, Angeles for the establish
ment of such courts cannot possibly be
Ga gerous.
| Not only this, but 1t may be seriously
questioned If it is net necessary that such
courts should be provided for in the char
ter, If such courts are to exist at all after
the adoption of a new charter.
The various decisions Of cur supreme
court dealing with the question of the sub
serviency of city charters to genera,
laws" have not been unanimous decisions
that is TO say, there have been dissenting
opinions of no mean force, 10 the effect
that the general laws" mentioned in these
sections Of the constitution did not mean
laws regulating purely municipal affairs. ;.
such as the street law, so called and THE
Whitney act. so called. See ne dissenting
opinion of Justice Fox in the All You case
| So Cal. 339, and of Justice McKinstry In
! ThomasOn VS.. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 73, and
People VS.. Henshnw. 7s Cal. 453. In Davies
VS. uhe City Of Los Angeles SC Cal. 81, Chief
Justice Beatty says that, fer reci;ors given
by Justice McKirstry In Thomason VS..
Ashworth ard People VS., Henshaw, he be-
leved those cases and the case Of All You
ceded the amendment 10 section G, article
NJ, and the adoption Of section Sle Of that
article of the constitution. Do not those
| 4 m en- G. nle0tS 10 tne CONSTRUCTOR larry SuS
gest that the people Of the state did not
relish the decisions Of the majority Of the
supreme court, or did not like the corstitu.
| ton as construed by the majority CT the
court, and are they not sufficiently con-
| elusive that the people Of the state demand
that police courts shall be established by
charters ard that in municipal affairs
cities are not to be subject TO and controlled
by general laws? 1t Is not a question here
whether such general laws" as the Whit
ney act ought 70 control municipalities bur
question only Of what the people have
determined should be, by their amendment;
10 the constitution.
The provisions of the contribution are
mandatory and prohbitory, unless by ex
press words they are declared to be other
wise (sec. 90, art. y.
| am unable to give consent IL the prop
s,ion that cities or charters thereof here
after framed will be subject TO or con.
tro,led, in municipal affairs. by genera
laws, whether the policy Of exemptine
them be wise or unwise. If, however, my