davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
CountyGovernment
Act Does
Not Apply Here.

county and township government 1t would stfIl
be valid as to the particular cases for which
1t is intended, for in such case the particular
and the general both stand together neither
abrogates the other the former furnishing the
rule for the Freeholders' charter, the atte
for all other cases.
But the act establishing a uniform system
of county and township government does not
and never has applied to the county of san
Francisco, In the sense claimed by the appel
lants The first section provides that the sew
eral counties of this State as they now exis+
and such others may be hereafter organized
are bodies corporate and polite and as such
have the power specified In said act. Among
purchase and hold land within It's limits to
make contracts, and purchase and hold per-
sonal property as may be necessary to the exer-
else of its powers. to manage and dispose of
its property the interests of its inhabitants
may require to levy and collect such taxes
are authorized by law. The county of San
Francisco, already shown since the passage
of the consolidation act. has never, as such
owned or possessed any property or performed
any of the acts of a corporate body. Further
the general law provides that leach county
must have board of supervisors consisting of
five members" The county of San Francisco
never has had such a board or any board Of
supervisors since the consolidation act. The
for justices of the peace and constables in the
several townships of the county and there are
justices of the peace constables in the
townships of the county of San Francisco, since
there are no townships in San Francisco. In
fact. 1t is toe obvious for question or argument
that the general law establishing uniform
system of county government does not apply to
the city and county of San Francisco. Further,
section of article XI, as it now stands de-
clares that when said charter is approved as
therein provided 'It shall become the charter
of such city, or If such city be consolidated
with a county, then for such city and county.
and shall become the organic law thereof and
supersede any existing charter. and all amend
ments thereof and all laws inconsistent with
such charter" AS the section originally stood
it read, "Al special laws inconsistent with
such charter The purpose of the amendment
is in line with other amendments to the otber
sections of the article in question and would
seem to remove all doubt that such charters are
not subject to existing laws whether general
or special. Judgment affirmed
VAN DYKE, ].
MCFARLAND, j.,
GAROUTTE. j.,
BEATTY, c. j.,
HARRISON, j.
/ concur in the Judgment TEMPLE 7
concur in the Judgment solely on the ground
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
NEW CHARTER UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT

sessions of the Legislature. and. April 10. 1856.
an act was passed to repeal the several char
ters OF the city of San Francisco, to establish
the boundaries of the city and county OF San
francisco and to consolidate the government
thereof BY the first section of said act ii
Is provided that THE corporation or body poll
TIC ana corporate existing and known as
the city or San Francisco, shall remain and
continue TO be body polite and corporate In
name and in fact by the name of the city and
county OF San Francisco and by that name
sIlall nave perpetual succession. may sue and
ueIend In all courts and places, and In all
matters and proceedings whatever ana may
nave and may common seal; and
the same may alter at pleasure. and may pur-
chase, receive, hold and enjoy real and per-
sonal property. and SELL convey, mortgage and
dispose OF the same for the common beneht
by the second section 1t is provided that the
public buildings lands and property, all rights
OF property and rights OF action, and all
moneys revenues and income belonging or
appertaintng either to the corporation OF the
city or san Francisco, TO the county OF san
francisco, are hereby declared TO be vested
ln and to appertain to, the said city and coun-
~ of San Francisco; and the moneys in the
treasury of said city. and in the treasury OF
said county of San Francisco, and all the reve-
nues and income from whatsoever source arls-
ing including delinquent taxes upon persons
and property appertaining to the said city or
TO the said county, shall be handed over, pald
and received into the treasury of the city and
county of San Francisco part of the gen
eral fund"
The boundaries Of the new municipal corpo-
ration designated as the city and county OF
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
No Reason to
Disturb
The Enactment.


ing upon constitutional class Of municipali-
ties is not special legislation. The authorities
in this State without exception so declare the
law. Again, the act applies 10 all municipai-
ties that authorized to adopt freeholder
charters. Such municipalities intrinsically
constitute class in themselves and probably
even In the absence Of constitutional classih-
cation could be dealt with by general laws.
but in view of the constitutional classification
It cannot be denied for q moment but that
legislation relating 70 such a class Is both
general and uniform. (Mntzer vs. Schilling, III
Cal, 361.)
1t is not light thing TO set aside act
of the Legislature. and the rule is elementary
that unless it is perfectly plain that such act
is violative of constitutional provisions, court
will uphold it, With the policy of the legislation
found in the act the court has nothing to do.
This legislation may be wise or unwise. That
is a matter with which the court has no con-
Germ. 1t is for alone to declare the law
void or valid and that declaration must rest
upon the test, namely, Is this act clearly viola
tive of some constitutional provision? In other
words the real question here is, Does IL plainly
and clearly appear that these two elections con-
stituted municipal affairs, within the mean
ing of these words as used in the constitution
In view Of what has been said, we are not
prepared to make that declaration.
The Judgment and order are affirmed.
We concur: GAROUITE, j.
VAN DYKE. ].
NE,I-A T
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
ITS MARVELLOUS SUCCESS IN ALL KIDNEY, BLADDER
AND URIC ACID TROUBLES
To Prove for Yourself tbe Wonderful Merits Of
This New Discovery Every "CulI" Reader
May Have q Sample Bottle Sent Ab-
soIutely Free by Mo.

kidneys gentle healing, influence
rritabity gently regulate
thing will lis KiImer's Root
the Kidney Remedy.
considered only urinary troubles
their beginning disorder
these useful
What natural?
Kidneys filter purify the blood.
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
The Charter Was
Created
by the State.

strument by a majority vote and until such
approval 1t has no life. Notwithstanding all
voice may ask for a new charter, yet the
State, by and through its Legislature, may
deny that request. The Legislature stands as
the representative of the sovereign power OF
the State, and has the arbitrary right to grant
or refuse charters to municipalities. grant
OF, Oh a Gharter to municipality is a grant OF
no such power. 1t is a delegation of a certain
amount amount of power to the municipality
heretofore vested in the State. 1t is
eighty. It is for this reason that the
State through its Legislature must breathe into
the charter the breath of life; and if the State
withhold its breath such action is beyond all
review. When the constitution vested this ON
seem that the trainers of that instrument
deemed the creation Of municipal corporation
a state affair OF the greatest import.
In speaking of the general principle here in
VOWED Judge Cooley says, in People Y. Hurlbut
"a Mich, a; There is doubt of the right
OF the State to do any of these things; not by
virtue of any general authority to take TO itself
the management of the local concerns, but be
cause the inauguration and modification OF
local government only be provided for
without confusion and injustice by the aid or
the guiding and assisting hand of the authority
that creates and modifies The right in the
State is right not to run and operate the
machinery of local government but TO provide
for and put ii in notion This seems to be
the very principle recognized by the trainers
of the constitution and carried into effect by
the aforesaid amendment to that instrument:
And it may we'll be said that while general
Legislation to municipal affairs is there pro
hlblteu, yet at the same time tne very same
section OF the constitution reserves to the State.
not the right Ito and operate the machin-
cry of local government" but the right to pro
vide for and put the machinery into motion.
In People vs.. City of Oakland. 123 Cal, 604. 1t
is held that a general law providing for the
manner OF anneHfng adjacent territory TO
municipality did not deal with municipal af-
fairs and was therefore without consttu-
tional objection II would seem that the add
ing Of adjacent territory to q municipality and
bringing the inhabitants of that territory with
in the government Of the municipality
matter of great moment and interest to the
municipality. Yet it held not to be such
a municipal affair contemplated by the con
stitItion This court there said LAS the
Legislature alone has the power to authorize
such annexation, it must have the power to
prescribe the terms conditions and mode OF
annexation" This language applies with full
force to the question under discussion in the
case at bar
The charter act of 1897 is neither special legis
lation, nor does It lack uniformity Of operation.
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

James D. Phelan ct al. defendants and re-
spondents, San Francisco No. 204S.
This is action brought by a taxpayer by
injunction against the Board of Election Com
missoners and other municipal officers of the
city and county of San Francisco to restrain
the expenditures of certain public moneys for
the conduct and carrying of an election in
said city and county The primary and direct
purpose OF the litigation is to test the validity
of the new charter Of the city and county of
San Francisco, which is to take effect January
!. 190G.
The State Legislature of 1897 placed upon the
statute books an act which may be called The
Charter Election Act" 1t is entitled An act
in relation 10 elections held under the authority
of section of article XI of the constitution
to elect Boards OF Freeholders or to vote upon
proposed charters upon amendments to eN-
listing charters " The election to secure
Board of Freeholders In this city TO draft a
charter, and the election subsequently held 10
ratify the action of that Board of Freeholders'
were held under the aforesaid act. The man
ner of holding and conducting these elections
while in strict conformity with the act, was
widely at variance with the provisions OF the
general law as to the manner and conouct OF
holding elections in the city and county or
san Francisco; and II is now claimed that
these elections as held were absolutely VOID oy
reason of the unconstitutionality OF the statute
under which they were held, and that the elec-
tions being void, therefore the new charter Is
a void and barren instrument
The parties attacking the constitutional
ity of this act of the Legislature rest the entire
ll ~
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
Improved Order of Red Men.

Great Chief Of Records Bliss has re-
ceived from Past Great Sachem Burgman
a fine photograph of the representatives
to the Great Council of the United States,
taken before the once residence of George
Washington a Mount Vernon.
The great chief of records has issued a
handy directory of all the tribes and
councils. The booklet also contains a
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

great deal of matter of value to the mem
bership.
Great Junior Sycamore Holder and a
number of the members of Aunomas
Tribe have interested themselves in the
matter of organizing a new council of the
secured the names of fifty petitioners for
a charter and expect to have the council.
which will be called Nakomis, instituted
in short time.
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
Some Points
of the
Legal Attack.


tive of section of article XI Of the constitu-
tion of the State. That part of section arti-
Gle NJ of the constitution here directly in
volved reads Cities and towns heretofore or
hereafter organized and all charters thereof
framed and adopted by authority of this con-
stitution, except in municipal affairs, shall be
subject to and controlled by general laws" 1t
is now claimed that these two elections to
which reference has already been made were
municipal affairs within the meaning of the
constitution, and therefore, not subject to and
controlled by general laws. In this connection
II is then claimed that said act of 1897 is
general law attempting to deal with and CON
troll municipal affairs and for that reason
violative Of this constitutional prohibition. AS
second contention It is asserted that this
statute Is special legislation and also lacking
in uniformity OF operation. We at once pass to
an examination of these constitutional objec
tions
The solution of the questions thus presented
largely revolves around the meaning of the
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

cincts shall be sufficient "to make the number
of votes poled at any one precinct to be not
more than two hundred as nearly can be
ascertained is not TO be regarded as jursdic
ti0nal but is merely directory. The concluding
clause. "as nearly can be ascertatned,'
shows that much is left TO the discretion of
ing that by reason OF a failure to observe this
direction the fairness OF the election or the
completeness OF the vote was affected, the act
Of the board in making the consolidation must
be upheld. The finding Of the court that at
least one week before either election was held
a written notification was mailed TO each and
every elector in the city and county whose
name appeared upon the register. informing
him specifically of the exact location of the
polling place In his special election precinct
and enclosing Herewith sample Of the ballot
TO he used at said election, takes away all
claim of any want OF notice TO voters 1t Is
not claimed that the board acted in bad faith
The only claim being that by reason of the
registered vote within each Of said precincts
being much greater than two hundred, the
board must be presumed 10 have abused its
discretion In consolidating the precincts in the
manner Il did.
We need not determine whether this pro-
vision in section 1929 is to be construed as re-
quirinE the registered vote to be the criterion
for fixing the extent of the precincts or
whether the board had the right 10 fix their
extent upon its estimate OF the number Of
registered votes which would be polled at the
election. The wording OF the section Is such
that the board might act in good faith In max
ing the number OF precincts such as in their
opinion would make the number Of votes which
would he polled at each precinct not more than
two hundred. II was competent FOR any citi
zen, II he deemed the boundaries OF the pre-
cincts to be In violation Of this clause In the
section. 10 seek their correction prior to the
election. He ought not after the election has
taken place to be allowed TO impeach II upon
This ground alone, unless he can SHOW that by
reason thereof q fair election prevented.
There is no express provision IN the act Of
1875 directing precinct registration 10 be had
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
THE COUNTY
OFFICIALS
MUST ALL GO
Yn Pank


Henry S. Martin ct al, appellants vs.. The
Board of Election Commissioners of the City
and County of San Francisco ct al. respond
cts. S. F. No. 1874
This action is in some measure connected
with that of Fragley VS.. PheIan, S. f. No 2o4S
involving the validity of the Freeholders char
ter, just decided.
In the complaint of the plaintiffs 1t Is stated:
THAT this action is not designed or intend
ed to impeach the validity of the said charter
in any respect other than to have it adjudged
herein that the provisions of said charter, con-
ceruing the county officers of said city and
county of San Francisco are in open and fla
grant conflict with the constitution OF the
State of California, are an invasion OF and an
infringement upon the sovereignty OF said
state are a revolutionary usurpation of power
and are palpable violation of the law adopted
by the Legislature of said State, in obedience
TO the constitution, and entitled An act to
establish a uniform system of county and town
chip government approved April l. 1897. y
demurrer TO the complaint was sustained by
the court below and plaintins declining to
amend Judgment was entered In favor OF the
defendants, from which judgment this appeal
The provisions of the Freehoiders' charter
concerning the so-called county officers IN
whose behalf this action is prosecuted were
inserted in said charter in pursuance of the
amendment to article X1 OF the constitution,
concerning counties, cities and towns, and is
amendment it is declared: 1T shall be com
petent, in all charters framed under the au-
thority given by section OF article Xl OF
this constitution, to provide, in addition to
those provisions allowable BY this constitution
and by the laws of the State, follows: L.
Where a city and county government
has been merged. and consolidated into one
municipal government it shall also be eompe-
tent in any charter framed under said section
of said article XI TO provide for the manner
In which, the times at which, and the terms
for which the several county officers shall be
elected or appointed for their compensation,
and for the number Of deputies that each shall
have and for the compensation payable to
each OF such deputies
BY the act of the first Legislature dividing
the State into counties, passed February Is,
1850, the County
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
The Contention
Is Not
Well Made.

amendment has been considered and sustained
by this court Besides, there are many otneI
submitted and adopted since the passage OF the
act of 1888 There is no constitutional objection
to the passage of such an act ana thdl petis
the case. 1t is entirely proper Tor the LeBlsld-
ture to provide by general, instead or specldi
legislation for submitting constitutional aHiehu-
ments to the people
The causes leading up to the adoption of con-
stitutional amendment section "a are Wen
known In the Freehoders' charter of the city
Of Los Angeles provision made for the es-
tablishment of Police Court and the electlon
of Judges thereof. In People VS.. Teal, 80 CAL
333 it was held by this court that such pro-
son that inferior courts. including Police
by article VI, concerning the Judicial power or
the State and that IL is there provided that the
Legislature may establish inferior courts In any
incorporated city or town, or city ana county J.;
and this meant that act must be passed
by the Legislature in the form and manner
prescribed in article ", legislative department,
and that the approval of the Freeholders char
ter by vote Of the two houses of the Leg
islature not equivalent TO the passage or
a law as provided IN said legislative article.
Hence the new section. S1a of article XI OF the
constitution subdivision l, confers, in express
terms the power 10 provide in Freeholders'
charters for the constitution regulation, gov
ernInent 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 or appointed, and for
the compensation Of such Judges and their
clerks and attaches And to remove any
doubt that may have previously existed con-
cerning the status of officers of the class prose-
cutting this action in merged and consolidated
municipalities IT is further expressly provided
in the amended section. Si2, that II shall be
competent in a Freeholders' charter of sucn
consolidated government to provide for the
election of such officers for such municipality.
There is no room for doubt therefore as to the
purpose of the Legislature in proposing said
amended section sI2 of article XI, or ~ the
people in voting upon and approving the same.
1t is contended, however, on the part of the
appellants that the provisions of said amended
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

difficult to effectively merge two
separate bodies into one Besides in the Con,
stitutional Convention of 1883 the city and
county OF San Francisco was referred TO and
treated a merged and consolidated mu-
nicipal government and II then. as now
the only municipal government of that kind in
the State.
That portion of section of article N OF the
constitution where merged and consolidated
municipal governments are referred to has not
been changed since 1t reported to the
convention by the Committee Municipal Cor
poratio and the debates show that the terms
there used referred to municipal government
like that OF the city and county OF San Fran
cisco. During the debate on the various amend
ments proposed to that portion of section
referring to the two houses of legislation lsince
annulled by constitutional amendmenO, Judge
Hager. the chairman of the committee. in re-
plying. said: Il had no idea that this section
was going to create so much difficulty in the
convention or receive much apparent oppo-
sti9n. The section drawn was intended to
be for the city of San Francisco" debates of
the Constitutional Convention p 1851
Those remarks of Judge Hager were not queS-
toned by any member, and il is fair therefore,
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
Merged" as Meant
by the
Constitution.

of the city Of San Francisco. as well as the pro
visions of the act creating the county of San
Francisco; and all the funds and property of
every kind Heretofore belonging either to the
city or county became vested in and belonged
to the new municipal corporation known as the
city and county OF San Francisco. 1t would
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

essentially q n q
alone a municipal
affair. 1t is d
State affair, and
that fact Is rec
ognized in unmis-
taxable terms by
the State when
I h e constitution
demands that the
State Legislature
annrpya tho in
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24
No Conflict
With the
General Law.


words, that the law (and a Freeholders' char
ter adopted as provided for in the constitution
is a Law Of the highest grade) cannot be
passed although in pursuance of express
power granted by the constitution, because it
may perhaps infringe upon some other law
The rule OF construction invoked by appellants
seems to be that a provision in a law con-
stitution in reference to a particular matter is
imperative and void If IL be inconsistent with
the general provisions of said law constitu-
ton. The direct opposite is the true
struction in such cases.
The more specific provision controls the gen
eral, without regard to their comparative
dates; the two acts, operating together. and
neither working the repeal of the other"
Bishops Written Laws sections 112-126; Des-
mond Dunn 81 Cal 247; Dwarris on Stat
utes 7C5 Cooey's Const Linn. So; Common
wealth vs.. Council Of Montrose, 80 Penn. St.
591 Coke VS.. state. 144 n. Y. S96; People ex
rel. vs.. Keller. Ia \. Y, 81: State vs. Kelly
"a n. Law. Is; McGarsh vs. State, etc, "a
n. J. Law. 509: State City of Trenton IS
y. ]. Law. 81: Crane VS.. Reeder % Mich 923 }
Under this rule of construction it would be
immaterial whether the general county gov
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

that the constitutional amendment-sectfon S15-
definitely settles the question involved in favor
of the contention of respondents.
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

= a II Il dllClSCO
were fixed as at
present. and there
was formed out Of
the southern por-
tion of the county
of San Francisco
the county of San
Mateo, and the
eighth section OF
the act dividing
the State into
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

He-He that courts and runs away will
live to court another day.
She-But he that courts and does not
we'd may find himself in court instead.
The San Francisco call., 1899-10-24

the words "ex-
cept in municipal
affairs. " was sub
mitted and adopt
ed at the same
time and in the
same manner as
section Si2, now
under considera-
ton, and the va
li1{tHr Of that