The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-03-03
The Decision OF the
Supreme Court.
SALOON-KEEPERS Defeated
WILL HAVE TO PAY A BIG MU-
NICIPAL LICENSE.
The Newly Acquired Territory Sure
to Cut an Important Figure
in the Coming City
Election.

The Supreme Court has rendered de-
cision in the big Oakland annexation case,
holding that the annexation IS legal
While the matter is directly of great i'm
portance to the people residing in the old
Lorin and Golden Gate districts, as well
as to the residents of Oakland, the deci-
sion is far-reaching, as it will apply to
many municipalities all over the State
where enlargement of municipal territory
is or may be contemplated. The facts of
the case as presented to the higher court
are interesting.
After the annexation of a large piece
of territory on the north OF Oakland to
the city in the manner prescribed by law,
action was begun to have the proceedings
declared illegal and void. The Superior
Court of Alameda County decided that
the annexation was legal.
From all accounts, those who were most
bitter in opposition to annexation were
about thirteen saloon-keepers, who were
anxious to avoid the payment of the mu-
nicipal liquor license of $500 year instead
of 500, the amount of the license of the
outside districts. Acting upon the deci-
sion of the lower court, all of the political
parties in the annexed districts nominated
candidates for the offices of the Oakland
municipality that are to be filled by the
election that is to take place on the 18th
of this month. In the meantime, the APP
peal had been taken to the higher court,
and, realizing the necessity of having
decision to avoid getting matters badly
muddled, the Supreme Court consented
to advance the case instead of letting 1t
take its regular course and come UP in
a year or so. The final opinion was writ
ten by Commissioner Hayne, and Chief
Justice Beatty added a concurring opin-
ion.
Commissioner Hayne briefly states the
case by saying that 1t was to determine
the validity of proceedings under which
Oakland claims the territory lying north
no If
ley. The annexed territory includes the
whole of Adeline sanitary district and
part of Golden Gate sanitary district. and
the contention was made that sanitary
districts cannot be annexed to an incor-
porated town or city under the act of 1889,
under which the proceedings In question
were had. Relative to this the court in
part says:
This contention is based upon the proposition
that two public corporations cannot exist in the
same territory when the powers conferred upon
each conflict with the other, and that the
powers conferred upon each do conflict; that
sanitary districts cannot be dissolved by an
nexation proceedings under the act of 1889, but
only in the special way provided by the sani-
tary act under which they were organized. and
under the statute providing for the consolida-
ton of municipal CORPORATIONS.
1t may be conceded at the outset that SAM
tary districts are public corporations. though
not designated corporations by the statute.
Ieges are~such as are Incident to municipal cor
porations formed under the municipal govern
though not possessing many OF the lmportant
powers duties and privileges of the latter, and
that the same powers could not after annexa-
ton be exercised by each in the same territory.
But If the statute permits territory embraced In
or covered by a sanitary district to be annexed
to city municipal corporation of higher
class and capable of exercising the same func-
lions as well as others essentlaI 70 llIuilclpai
government such statute contempiates ces-
sion of the powers of the inferior corporation to
the greater, and consequent dissolution OF the
former as result of the annexation.
If the territory embraced In these sanitary
districts had chosen to incorporate under the
statute a town or city instead OF becom-
ing annexed TO the city of Oakland 1t GER
tainly could not have been necessary as pre-
liminary to such incorporation TO dislncorpo-
rate as such sanitary districts, since by the in
corporation they would have preserved every
right and privilege they had before. and would
at the same time acquire other rights and
additional powers which would enable them
the better to preserve and secure all the rights
they had as sanitary DISTRICTS and If they
might incorporate a town or city without
first dissolvirg the prior Incorporation. no rea-
son is perceived why they could not accom-
plsh the thing by becoming annexed to
existing municipal corporation under the
This statute unquestionaby authorized the
annexation of the territory here in question I'M
less appellants further contention can be sus-
tanned, viz: that these districts were munich
nal corporat tons and the proceedings to ac-
compIisb the union of this territory with the
city of Oakland should have been taken under
section of the act of 1888.
The court holds that the suggestion
that difficulties might arise out of the
division of Golden Gate Sanitary District,
a part of which is not annexed, need not
cause apprehension, as the &C.; providing Ing
provides for their dissolution.
The appellants second point is: There
is nc. law under. which to add the an
nexed territory to any wards, so as to
enable the duly qualified electors residing
in the annexed territory to use the cleo
tive franchise to Which, they are entitled
To this the court answers by calling
attention to the Oakland charter which
provides that the city shall be reds
so long as this is not done within ninety
days previous to an election. In altering
the boundaries of the wards, or creating
new wards, regard must be had to the
number of inhabitants, so that each ward
shall contain, as near as may be. an equal
number of Inhabitants, exclusive OF per
sons Incapable of citizenship in this
The City Council adopted an ordinance
changing the boundaries of the Second
Ward, and the contention was that 1t mad
no power to do so.
On this spoint the court, speaking of the
power given by the Legislature 10 make
such changes, says:
iacent ward or wards shall be changed so as
to include the added territory. AS the city of
fer the annexed territory was properly added
to the Second Ward This, 1 think. could be
o. of the charter while requiring that the city
shall be redistricted into seven wards every
tenth year. does not prohipt change Oh
boundaries at other times
Tt seems that there were two petitions
for annexation, the first being imperfect
in its designation OF the boundaries of
the new territory The ,I second was acted
gued that in this there was irregularity:
The court held that no one was injured
by the failure to submit the first to a
vote. The lower court was sustained.
Berkeley News Notes.