The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-02-04

plement to the one-twelfth act was pass
ed March IS, 1878. At that time the Legis-
lature had power to pass special laws in
reference to the municipal Corporations
and such laws remained in force after
the adoption of the new constitution. un-
less inconsistent Herewith or specially
ment inconsistent with or repugnant to
attention.
Repeats by implication are not favored
Inc rule in such cases is that the earlier
statute remains in force, unless the two
are manifestly, inconsistent with and re-
pugnant to each other: The reason Of the
rule is that the Legislature, If it had in
TENDED, by the later statute to repeal the
earlier, would have expressly so declared
sectiogn Of at tbs all al s Ct SEQ
vides: Nothing In the four codes affects
any OF the provisions of the following
statutes, but such statutes are recognized
as continuing in force. notwithstanding
the provisions of the codes. except so far
as they have been repealed or affected by
subsequent laws:
''2. All acts consolidating cities and
counties and acts amending or supple
menting such acts
Section 1916 Of the same code reads:
Boards of Education are elected in cities
and their powers and duties are as pre-
scribed in such statutes. except as other
wise in this chapter provided"
1t is objected that because the rate of
pervisors until the third Monday in Sep
TENDER it is impossible for the Board of
what the amount Of the school fund for
the year will be, and it is therefore I'M
reasonable to apply the one-twelfth act
to that board. The same objection could
be made to applying the act to the Board
of Supervisors, or to any other depart
ment of the municipality. At the time
when that act was passed the rate of tax
alton was not fixed until the first Monday
In October.
Political Code, original, section a714.
The requirement Of Political Code, sec
at least eight months in the year Is not
In conflict with a statute limiting the
monthly expenditures to one-twelfth Of
the entire school fund for the year.
The one-twelfth act was passed after
the amendment of 1874 to section 1923 of
the Political Code, and is, therefore, not
controlled by any of its provisions, even IL
they should be considered inconsistent
with that act.
The continuance in force of the one
twelfth act In nowise interferes with the
uniform operation of all general laws in
reference to the public schools.
The proposition urged by defendants
counsel that upon the adoption of the
present constitution the Board of Edu-
municipal government is, in my opinion,
untenable. 1t Is true that 1t is an in
strumentality or agency of the State, but
Te munea If e ez
and county of San Francisco and all de-
partments thereof are instrumentalities
of the State for conducting the affairs
of government within particular dis
trict. Dillon Mum. Corporations (third
e..tion), sections 81 66; Williams VS.. Egg
gleston, 40 U. S.. 304; Sinton VS.. Ashbury,
Al Cal, SIS. The demurrer to complaint
will therefore be overruled.
j. M. SEAWELL, Judge.
In the action instituted by the mer-
n that IF OSpar Moses q OqinSt RI ia
Board of Education ct al, Judge Sea-
well handed down no opinion, simply
sustaining the demurrer of the defend
ants on the ground that the Board Of
Education was an improper defendant.
THE action should have been brought
against the Auditor to prevent the
auditing of the demands of the teach
ers," said Judge Seawell. In this ac-
ton the merchants seek to restrain the
payment of teachers claims before
their own are paid. The Board Of
Education under such circumstances is