The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1901-10-11
Construction Is Obvious.


Every act shall embrace but one subject. which
shall be expressed in its title.
Construction Is Obvious.
The form in which revisions and amend
ments were presented TO the Legislature
was a connotation of the numeral by
by the text of whatever 1t was desired to
be enacted, to repeal, add or correct in
the original law. The court says:
The said Code of Civil Procedure not
1t seems as though the mind of either layman
or lawyer might accept with safety the con-
struction which is so obvious.
The first part of the constitutional law
was violated, and there was little or no
defense offered. The court does not even
pause to argue the matter.
In reference to the second question, that
''every act shall embrace but one sub
ject," the points made by the respondents
and the anxious amici curiae are deemed
worthy of an answer. The title of the act
of Civil Procedure by amending certain
sections, repeating others and adding GER
tain new sections.
The court on this point says:
1t is apparent that the language of the title
of the act in question in and of itself ex-
presses no subject whatever. No ore could
tell from the title alone what subject of legis-
such subject, as far as the title of the act in
forms u.s. might have been entirely different
from anything to be found in the act itself.
ALI the CODES AHeCted.
1t is contended on the part of the re-
spondents that although the title does
not, as an independent instrument, ex-
press any subject, yet it does so by "ref-
erence.' The court comedies that where
the title still expresses a definite subject
then the title of an amendatory act may
be helped by reference TO the title of the
original act, which does express subject,
being incorporated into the title of the
The case at bar, however, refers merely
to the Code of Civil Procedure. The court
holds that the name Civil Procedure COW
ers the great body of the States laws and
is not confined to any particular line of
subjects, but includes substantive law,
criminal law and Legislation that might
be clasSed under any category whatever"
The law recognizes four codes-the Civil
Code, the Political Code, the Penal Code
and the Code of Vivil Procedure.
Justice Mcfarland in his decision states
that legislation under any code. is insep-
arably interviewer with legislation under
the others. He says further:
How then can it be rightly said that mere
reference to the title of an act expresses any
even refer to a single section which is to be
amended or repealed, and as to the new
sections 1t does not give the slightest intima-
ton as to what they to contain.
The various respondents maintain that
the title in question is a device for insert
ing subject broad enough to cover
everything. Considering the matter in
this light Justice Mcfarland says:
Under that view the people who framed and
adopted the constitution would be convicted of
folly in deliberately constituting a grave con-
sttutional limitation of legislative power upon
a most important subject when the Legislature
could at circumvent it by a mere verbal
trick.
Labors Of Commission Undone.
Many arguments are advanced by the
respondents and one after the other they
are summarily dismissed by the court.
In fact the able legal lights who try to
uphold the codes find apparently little
ground on which a stand may be taken.
The wording OF the constitution is such
that there can be little discussion as to
it's meaning, on the point in question at
least. The law was clearly violated, so
the decision says, and the labors of the
Code Commission and the Legislature SO
far as they are mutually concerned, is I'M
done. The court admits that the intent
OF the commission was praiseworthy, but
apparently not productive of desired re-
suits. 1t is said by the Justices that the
decision is to be deplored, but Justice Nc
Farland and his associates are, of course.
firm in the opinion that: the law must be
followed, even though the results seem to
be disastrous
On this point, the court SAYS in clos
ing:
Complaint is made that the rule as above
stated would put the Legislature to great in
many amendments or indulge in a great deal
of legislation at session or at one time
That consideration could not under any cir
cumstances. destroy a. constitutional provision
But-without impugning the wisdom Of any
provision of the act before us-it is quite an
tiona provision in question: is OF to 'n@ 9onSt tH
evils Which might come from hasty, inconsid-
crate or wholesale legislation. The statutes
scribed by the constitution should not be at
tempted. The scarcity of statutory laws and
among the evils of the times Ao'
Our conclusion is that. for the reasons stated