The San Francisco call., 1904-08-16


preme Court. 1t decided that the issue
Of bonds for public improvements is
valid. One exception to the decision
Of the ruling of Judge Sloss Of the Su-
perior Court is made in the case Of the
improvement of Telegraph HILL Even
this was not lost on the question of the
( Supervisors right to make such an ap-
propriation, but for the reason that 1t
failed of the necessary two thirds Of
the public vote required for the lssu-
ing Of the bonds.
When the special bond election was
held last september all the proposals
for the Issuance Of bonds to cover the
expenses Of city improvements were
carried by twothirds majorities. Her
bert +. Law. a capitalist and heavy
taxpayer OF this city, brought suit
against the City and County of San
Francisco to restrain the issuing of
bonds on the ground that the Board OF
Supervisors had no authority under
the charter TO authorize the approprl-
alton Of 81, 100000. This suit was de-
cided IN the Superior Court, before
Judge Sloss, il favor of the city, and
Law, through his attorney. Henry G.
McPike, appealed TO the Supreme
Court. The attorneys for the city were
City ATTORNEY Percy V. Long and As
sistant w. /. Brobeck.
The Supreme Court answered the ap-
peal through a decision written by
Jusice Henshaw and concurred in by
all the Justices with the exception OF
Chief Justice Beatty who did not sign
the decision. The court sustained
Judge Sloss decision IN section No. l
of the answer, as follows:
Providing for the issuance, sale and
redemption Of bonds OF the city and
county Of San Francisco to the amount
Of s17,771.ooo for the following pur-
poses: 81 .000 600 for the construction
of new City and County Hospital;
2-S725.000 for the construction Of a
sewer system; 3-S3 595, 900 for the con-
struction Of new schoolhouses and the
/ improvement of existing schoolhouses,
the acquisition of lands for the erect
ing thereon of new schoolhouses and
also for additional lands Tor play
grounds for established schools: A.
S1621. 600 for the repair and improve
ment Of the accepted streets of the
city; 5-s697 900 for the construction of
a new County Jail and additions to the
Hall Of Justice; 6-S1, ,647. 900 for the
construction Of a building to be used
as public library building and read
ing rooms and the acquisition OF land
for the construction thereon Of said
building; 7-S741, 600 to be used for the
acquisition Of lands as public parks,
TO be used as children's Fairgrounds;
$3.50, 900 for the acquisition of lands
for the extension of Golden Gate Park
northerly between Thirteenth and
Fourteenth avenues to the Preside;
s-S29S. 900 for the acquisition of lands
for additional public parks in that por-
tion Of the city known as the Mis-
sion"
PLAINTIFF SUSTAINED.
The court sustained the appeal of
Herbert z. Law on the issuing Of
bonds for 1887. 900 for the acquisition
Of lands for additional public parks in
that portion of land known as Tele-
graph Hill' on the ground that the
necessary two-thirds OF the voters. The
substance Of the courts decision in this
matter is as follows:
II is contended that the proposition to issue
bonds for the acquisition OF lands for public
assent OF two-thirds OF the voters. The EIec-
tiOn Commissioners found that the election
2T5os votes had been cast, OF which 1882
were in favor and SlS7 were against The re-
suit is that l1s9 voters failed to register their
Will in the matter While admitting that the
necessary two-thirds were in favor, II Is con-
tended that there should have been two-thirds
OF the total vote, otherwise the bond issue
was not carried It scarcely admits OF doubt
that this section contemplates and requires the
favor OF two-thirds OF all the vote cast and
accordingly the proposition failed TO carry
On this point all doubt is removed by sec
declares: '''-''
AT least two-thirds Of the electors voting
thereon at such election shall be necessary TO
secure such acquisition and to warrant the
issuance OF municipal bonds therefor.
Under the earlier charter provisions II would
have been quite permissible to hold that the
law meant that each proposition severally was
70 receive q two thirds vote OF those voting
upon Il. but industria. this language has
been changed 50 TO require a two-thirds
vote OF those voting at the special election
Since these propositions were submitted sepa-
rstely. as the charter contemplates, the failure
Of one TO carry does not affect the validity OF
the others which have received the requisite
number Of votes.
The decision Of the Supreme Court
in the other clauses under considera-
ton is summed up in the following
words:
The judgment Of this court therefore is that
the judgment Of the trial court is affirmed as
70 all save the cause Of action touching on
the acquisition OF Telegraph Hill for public
park. AS to that cause Of action the de-
murrer Of the defendants is to be overruled
II the proofs OF the plaintiff. upon trial, shall
correspond 70 the allegations Of the complaint
then upon that cause Of action to enter its
judgment IN accordance with the coronIaint
We concur. (Signed) Hensnaw, Mcfarland.
Shaw. Angellott, Van Dyke Lorigan
The charter provision states that but one
clause was taken directly from a provision OF
the State constitution, which has been inter-
preteo often by the Supreme Court as a "di-
rection merely persuasive only to the minds OF
the legislators, and In no sense uaandatorv
The supreme Court holds that in this ca Sc ssthe
distinct subjects were all germane and might
rightly be included IN one ordinance"
COMPREHENSIVE TITLES.
The action Of the court on this mat
ter is as follows:
The charter provides IN article z chan.er
1, section 2, that an ordinance shall embrace
but one subject which shall be expressive OF
Its title II any subject be embraced in an
ordinance ana not expressive in it's title such
ordinance ehall be void as to so much thereof
as Is not expressed IN it's title. Several courts
have decided that this clause was left TO tha
conselences Of the Legislators Nor "a this
peculiar 70 this State the same being the. eIIs
tom IN other States where like provisions eT-
/ listed and the same construction was given Nv
the courts. There Is no mandate in the cbar
Ter OF the city and county OF San FranoiSoo
corresponding to that OF the constif,lfioT -
the state, and therefore Il will be suffciant
upon this subject to declare in accordance With
the Uniform construction OF such nrov5.iCr.
that II Is directory with the legislative bod'
alone and not subject of judicial coenizsyS uS
But II may be added that, even IL the nrovisio,,
| be regarded as mandatory. the ordinance in
question that Of incurTing a bonded indshtaa
ness, they all belong TO a general subtect 70
be submitted 10 the voters, the expediercv -
! inexpediency Of bonding the city for specihed
/ public improvements"