The San Francisco call., 1899-09-06
FORCING AN EXTRA
SESSION ON THE PEOPLE
The Mexican Candidate and the Governor Have the Law and
Public Opinion Against Them, but.

Court is a recent discovery, but that is
not true.
During the entire time that the Legis
lature Of this State consumed IN ballot
ing for United States Senator, last
January and February and d part of
March, this decision was open law TO
any one who chose to reau Il, because
il was decided upon the l2tn day Of
December 1898, and appeared III pamph-
let form early in January. The bar OF
the State will await the proclamation
for an extra session in a condition OF
amused expectancy, which, when the
noted case Is read Will change INTO
roar of laughter; for the Norwood case
does not decide anything which the
Burns people claim for it, and 1t is SO
foreign to the plea under which the
extra session is to be called that one
need not be a lawyer to know how
ftimsy the preteXt and to what desperate
straits the politicians who attempt TO
adopt it must be driven. Norwood
against Baker is not street assessment
case, nor is 1t street Improvement case
within the meaning OF the Nrooman act
The law relating TO local assessment
for the purpose OF improving street,
that is, sewerng, paving, sldewaIking.
grading and regarding, has long been
settled, both in this state, in the At
lantic States and by the Supreme Court
of the United States, and no one may
question it, not even a political lawyer.
The street law has been framed under
a section of the constitution which has
been in existence ever since California
was Il State, copied from the constitu-
tions of the older States, repeatedly and
consistently construed judictally, and
to-day the VroOman act Is as good and
street improvements are as constitu-
tional as they have ever been in the State
Of California, and there Is nothing to
question the doctrine in the case of Nor
wood against Baker. Norwood against
Baker is not a street improvement case;
it was an action for eminent domain
for the condemnation of land, by which
the estate of the defendant was sought
to be taken from him and appropriated
to the purposes of a public street, and
it was attempted to charge him not
only with the benefits which it was said
his remaining land would receive by TAX
ing away from him one piece of his
land, but 1t was also sought TO tax him
suit.
When you divest citizen of his prop
erty by condemnation or under the doc
trine of public use, the constitutional
and serious, because from the early
days of the Englsh-sp speaking race, from
the time that the common law received
its recognition in England, the Anglo
Saxon has at all times been Jealous of
the rights of personal liberty and his
right of property. 1t is easy to see that
the taking away of piece of land from
a man and causing him to pay a sum
of money for having his land taken
away from him, should naturally jostle
and jar the ideas of the average Anglo
Saxon about property rights. And so
when the Governor of the State, should
he decide to call an extra session, comes
to look at the question, he will find,
first, that the conditions called extra
ordinary" existed before the last ses-
sion convened, and that an entire ses-
sion of the Legislature passed without
taking any notice Of what is now called
an extraordinary occasion" He will
also find, if he takes the trouble to read
the case of Norwood against Baker,
that there is nothing in it which in any
wise changes or checks the existing
street law of the State. If he will stop
to think and read the handwriting on
the wall, he will conclude that the tenn
per of the people will not permit the
founded in law and fact, to place the
Legislature of the State at the service
of an unscrupulous politician.
In conclusion / would respectfully re-
fer the Governor to the last two para
graphs of the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the Norwood case,
which are as follows:
The judgment of the Circuit
Court must be affirmed, upon the
against the plaintiffs abutting
property was under a rule which
excluded any inquiry as to special
benefits, and the necessary op-
Grafton of which was, to the
extent of the excess Of the cost
of opening the street in question
over, any special benefits accruing
to the abutting property there
from, to take private property
for public use without compensa-
ton
1t is so ordered
A MEMBER OF THE BAR.
San Francisco, Sept. s.