The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-22
ALL HANGS ON THE
0NE-TWELFTH ACT
THE SCHOOL BOARD INJUNC-
TON SUITS SUBMITTED.
Argument Conferred on the Validity
and Effect of Statute Limit
ing the Expenditures of
Public Moneys.

Whether teachers will first be paid from
the moneys remaining in the hands of the
School Board or the demands of the mer-
chants, contractors, laborers and other
creditors will be honored will probably be
decided by Judge Seawell next Friday.
The Injunction suits of Elisha Brooks,
teacher. TO prohibit the auditing and pay
ment of merchants demands and that of
Oscar Moses, merchant, to prohibit the
recognition of the demands of the teach
ers. were argued before Judge Seawell
yesterday and submitted. John CARRIER,
Olney & Olney and Harry T. Creswell
represented the teachers, while the inter-
ests of the other creators were prose-
cuted by Frank Powers, Joseph L. Robi-
son and Attorney cushing.
A summing up of the argument adj
vanced by the various lawyers shows that
1t dwells on one point-the effect of what
act prHydes that If sbs not ab he Iawf
hereafter for the Board of Supervisors of
the city and county of San francisco, or
any committee. officer or board having
power to authorize or contract liabilities
against the treasury of said city and
county, to authorize, allow contract for
pay, or render payable, in the present or
demands against said treasury, or any of
the funds thereof, which shall in the
aggregate exceed one-twelfth part of the
amount allowed by laws existing at the
time of such contract, authorization, al
loWance, payment or liability. to be eX-
pended within the fiscal year of which
said month is part.
If at the beginning of any month any
money remains unexpended in any of the
funds set apart for maintaining the
municipal goyyernm4ent OF the city t and
might lawfully have been expended the
preceding month, such unexpended sum
pended by order of the Board of Super
visors in4aany succeeding month.
1t is contended on behalf of the teach
ers that the combined demands of mer-
chants and teachers will exceed the sum
allowed to be expended under this act.
and in such event the teachers have the
prior claim by. reason of a contract in adj
vance for the $4,000 per month allowed by
law. To this the attorneys for the mer-
chants argued that the ''one-twelfth act"
could not apply to the case at bar, as
those provisions contained in relation to
the School Board had been repealed by
the constitution and statutory enactment
providing that the schools should be kept
open at least eight months in the year.
The repeal alleged by the merchants at
torneys is one of implication and Judge
CARRIER contended that there could be no
stand together so as to be operative The
enactment known as the One-tWelfth
act" was passed for reasons of public
policy, Mr.. CARRIER held, and as an act to
piled to the Board of Education as well as
other bodies handling and disbursing pub
lie funds.
The final argument was made by Attor-
neys Robson and Gushing, who contend
ed that as it is at present the middle of
the fiscal year demands on proper con-
tracts could not be put aside. Again, the
attorneys contended that all laws should
have a uniform operation and as subse-
quent legislation had rendered the "one-
twelfth act' imperative it should not be
considered by the court in its final judg-
ment. Judge Seawell tnen took the mat
ter under advlsement.