Los Angeles herald., 1907-01-06

maintained for the purpose, among 9TH
er things of preventing the commission
Of wrongs. The referendum Is a new
institution I'm this country; very few
municipalities have adopted 1t, and sell
dom have the courts been called upon
to consider questions arising under Il.
In the case at bar there is no question
of fact to be determined with respect
to the urgency of the ordinance in
question. 1t is patent upon the face Of
the ordinances themselves that they
are not and cannot be urgent for the
preservation of the public peace, health
or safety, and the attorneys for the
defendants do not pretend that they are
so necessary, but freely and frankly adj
NIT that they are not.
1.-THE attorneys for the defendants
concede that II they are right in the po-
sition taken I'm this case, then 1t Is with
In the power of the city council to
absolutely nulllfy the referendum pro-
vision of the charter in every instance
by merely inserting q false statement
in such ordinance as to its emergency
and contend that the people are help
less to protect themselves from such
righteousness except by recourse to the
ballot. Is our government so weak
and is there no protection against such
iniquity?
1T must be admitted that power may
be abused when placed i'm the hands of
unworthy servants, and that where the
legislative body of municipality acts
on matters within it's jurisdiction the
courts are precluded from inquiring
into the motive by which it was actu-
ated, and that the people must submit
for the time being, the remedy being
Impeachment or the employment of
some other method by which the un-
worthy servant may be deposed. But
here 1t Is not a question whether the
city authorities shall be enjoined when
1t appears they may be acting in bad
faith with respect to matters within
their discretion, but is q question of
restraining them from doing a thing
which the defendants attorneys admit
Is wrong, Illegal and is about to be done
with willful intent.
Question Delicate One
"The question of interference by the
judicial department of the government
with the legislative department thereof
is one of much delicacy and many diff
culties; it should be approached with
the greatest caution. But it is the duty
of court to act with positiveness ac-
cording to it's conclusion after careful
consideration.
Had the attorneys for the defendants
by answer or affidavit traversed the al
legations of the complaint instead of
admitting their truth, to wit, that the
recitaticns of emergency contained in
| the ordinances were false and inserted
therein for the very purpose of de-
| priving the electors of the city of Los
Angeles of the benefits of one of it's
constitutional provisions, a different le-
| gal aspect of the case might have been
presented, with different result.
Possibly, upon final hearing, when a
| showing is made by an answer and
more time can be given to the consider
alton of the difficult questions involved
| than is permitted in the limited time
now at the courts disposal, a conclu-
sion may be reached that the people
have no remedy in the court to protect
themselves against willful violation by
their legislators of the charter 'provis-
ions by which they are legally and
should be morally bound, but must sub
nit to the preparation of the fraud
until Impeachment or other means shall
be employed deposing those who would
thus commit the wrong.
"But as the matter now stands, with
the admissions and concessions made
by the defendants, through their at
torneys, it would be a reproach to the
law and it's administration of justice for
this court to refuse to restrain the de-
PENDANTS from perfecting and putting
| in force the ordinance complained of.