« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
provided further, that whenever any county, or city and county, or city, or town shall provide for the support of minor orphans, or half-orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances, such county, city and county, city, or town shall be entitled to receive the same pro rata appropriations as may be granted to such institutions under church or other control. An accurate statement of the receipts and expenditures of public moneys shall be attached to and published with the laws at every regular session of the legislature.
The intent of this section is not so much to regulate aid and subsidies to private business corporations or enterprises in which the state had no interest (for which see section 31, article JV, and section 13, article XII of the Constitution, post), as to prohibit the promiscuous aiding of so-called charitable institutions and to restrict the state aid to such institutions as were thought to be deserving of such assistance. (Constitutional Debates, p. 783.)
The analogous section in the Constitution of 1849 is section 23 of article IV of that Constitution, and is as follows: No money shall he drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. An accurate statement of the receipts and expenditures of the public moneys shall be attached to and published with "the laws at every regular session of the legislature.
There are no citations of this section relating to private or business enterprises.
Aid to Corporation in Time of War.-Such a provision does not prohibit the legislature from appropriating its funds in time of war to aid a corporation in the construction of a railroad to be used by the state for military purposes. (People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 175.)
Aid to Agricultural Associations.—Under the provisions of this section it became impossible for the state to grant aid to the state agricultural society as a private or quasi public corporation. In 1880 (Stats. 1880, p. 49) it was changed to a state institution and ever since has been such an institution and received aid as such. (Melvin v. State, 121 Cal. 16, 53 Pac. 416.)
SPECIAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITED.
Sec. 25, Art. IV. The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is
Sixteenth-Releasing or extinguishing, in whole or in part, the indebtedness, liability, or obligation of any corporation or person to this state, or to any municipal corporation therein.
See article XII, section 7, post.
Nineteenth-Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity.
See article XII, section 1, post.
Twenty-fifth-Chartering or licensing ferries, bridges, or roads.
Twenty-sixth-Remitting fines, penalties, or forfeitures.
There is nothing in the old Constitution which forbids the legislature from passing local or special laws, except in respect to the formation of corporations other than municipal. (Const. 1849, seca, 31, art. IV.) This section of the old Constitution is considered under section 1 of article VII of the present Constitution, post.
In General: Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal. 490; People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 618; University of Cal. v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 613; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 8, 43 Am. Rep. 237; S. F. & N. R. R. R. Co. v. Board, 60 Cal. 32; S. V. W. W. v. S. F., 61 Cal. 38; People v. Chapman, 61 Cal. 267; Moble v. Tschirch, 63 Cal. 382; Miller v. Dunn, 72 Cal. 466, 1 Am. St. Rep. 67, 14 Pac. 27; Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 77, 14 Pac. 615; People v. McFadden, 81 Cal. 499, 15 Am. St. Rep. 66, 22 Pac. 851; Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 229, 24 Pac. 383; Ex parte Williams, 87 Cal. 79, 24 Pac. 602, 25 Pac. 248; Rollins v. Wright, 93 Cal. 400, 29 Pac. 58; Levy v. Superior Ct., 105 Cal. 616, 38 Pac. 965; People v. Lodi etc. Dist., 124 Cal. 696, 57 Pac. 660. Subdivision 19: People v. Superior Court, 100 Cal. 120, 34 Pac. 492; Tulare Co. v. May, 118 Cal. 306, 50 Pac. 427; People v. Lodi etc. Dist., 124 Cal. 698, 57 Pac. 660.
Local and Special Laws-In General.—Under the former constitution the legislature was not forbidden to pass local or special laws.
(Wigmore v. Buell, 122 Cal. 141, 54 Pac. 600; People v. Twelfth District Court, 17 Cal. 547; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6, 43 Am. Rep. 231; Nevada School Dist. v. Shoecraft, 88 Cal. 372, 26 Pac. 211.)
The provisions of this section are prospective only, and do not affect statutes passed before its adoption. (Nevada School Dist. 1. Shoecraft, 88 Cal. 372, 26 Pac. 211; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6, 43 Am. Rep. 231; Rollins v. Wright, 93 Cal. 395, 29 Pac. 58; Smrith v. McDermott, 93 Cal. 421, 29 Pac. 34; Meade v. Watson, 67 Cal. 591, 8 Pac. 311; Ex parte Chin Yan, 60 Pac. 78.)
The legislature cannot make a special act general by a legisla. tive declaration that it shall be considered a general act. (San Francisco v. Spring Valley W. W., 48 Cal. 493.)
A law which on its face is general and may be applied to all cities cannot be assailed on the ground that it was in fact passed to effect an improvement in one city only. (Davies v. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 37, 24 Pac. 771.)
A special law is one relating to a selected class, as well as a particular object. (Smith v. McDermott, 93 Cal. 421, 29 Pac. 34.)
As to what is a general and what a special law, see Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6, 43 Am. Rep. 231, per Morrison, C. J.
A general law must be as broad as the subject matter to which it relates. (Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242.)
An act applying uniformly upon the whole of any single class of individuals or objects, when the classification is founded upon sonie natural, intrinsic, or constitutional distinction, is a general law. (Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226. 24 Pac. 383; Cody v. Murphey, 89 Cal. 522, 26 Pac. 1081; Foster v. Police Commrs., 102 Cal. 483, 41 Am. St. Rep. 184, 37 Pac. 763; Rode v. Siebe, 119 Cal. 518, 51 Pac. 869; Ex parte Koser, 60 Cal. 177; Vail v. San Diego, 126 Cal. 35, 58 Pac. 392; People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 38 Pac. 905; Murphy v. Pacific Bank, 119 Cal. 334, 51 Pac. 317; Murphy v. Pacific Bank, 130 Cal. 542, 62 Pac. 1059.)
In order to make the law general, the classification must not be arbitrary, but must be founded upon some natural, intrinsic, or constitutional distinction, and some reason must appear why the act is not made to apply generally to all classes. (Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 401, 56 Pac. 691; Darcy v. Mayor, 104 Cal. 642, 38 Pac. 500.)
Although a law is general when it applies equally to all individuals of a class founded upon a natural, intrinsic, or constitutional distinction, it is not general if it confers particular privileges or imposes peculiar disabilities or burdensome conditions, in the exercie of a common right, upon a class arbitrarily selected from the general body of those vho stand in precisely the same relation to the subject of the law. (Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238, 27 Pac, 604; Bloss v. Lewis, 109 Cal. 493, 41 Pac. 1081.)
A law which applies only to a part of a class—which relates not to any genus, but only to species—is a special law. (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 83 Cal. 393, 23 Pac. 303.)
Acts Held to be General.—The following acts have been held to be general within the meaning of this section: An act relating to elections to elect boards of freeholders, and to adopt and amend charters (Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383, 58 Pac. 923); an act provided for police courts in all cities of a desig ted population, and providing that it shall go into effect upon the expiration of the term of office of the present police judge of such cities (People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436, 18 Pac. 413; Ex parte Halsted, 89 Cal. 471, 26 Pac. 961; In re Mitchell, 120 Cal. 384, 52 Pac. 799); an act applying to all elections in towns and cities (Vernon School Dist. v. Board of Education, 125 Cal. 593, 58 Pac. 175); an act providing for an action by a reclamation district to determine the validity of an assessment (Lower Kings River Reclamation Dist. No. 531 v. McCullah, 124 Cal. 175, 56 Pac. 887); the insanity law of 1897 (People v. King, 127 Cal. 570, 60 Pac. 35); section 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Carpenter v. Furrey, 128 Cal. 665, 61 Pac. 369); an act providing a special method for levying a tax for high schools, differing from that provided for other school districts (People v. Lodi High School Dist., 124 Cal. 694, 57 Pac. 660); an act providing for the refunding of indebtedness of municipal corporations other than cities of the first class (Los Angeles v. Teed, 112 Cal. 319, 44 Pac. 580); an act providing for the assessment of taxes upon railroads operating in more than one county (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 38 Pac. 905); a law making it a felony to sell intoxicating liquors to Indians (People v. Bray, 105 Cal. 344, 38 Pac. 731); an act providing for vaccination of all children attending public schools (Abeel v. Clark, .84 Cal. 226, 24 Fac. 383); an act relating to the compensation of the auditor and his clerk in all counties of the twentieth class (Farnum v. Warner, 104 Cal. 677, 38 Pac. 421); an act forbidding the erection of partition walls in cities and towns of a greater height than ten feet, without the consent of the adjoining owner, except around public gardens, etc. (Western etc. Co. v. Knickerbocker, 103 Cal. 111, 37 Pac. 192); the provisions of section 1001 of the Civil Code, provid. ing for the aequisition of private property through the exercise of the right of eminent domain (Santa Cruz v. Enright, 95 Cal. 105, 30 Pac. 197); a county ordinance providing a smaller license tax for the sale of spirituous liquors at wayside inns and rural watering places, outside of any city, than when sold in a city (Amador Co. v. Kennedy, 70 Cal. 458, 11 Pac. 757); an ordinance making it unlawful to conduct a laundry between 10 P. M. and 6 A. M., or on Sundays (Ex parte Moynier, 65 Cal. 33); the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure giving certain laborers preferred claims as against other attaching creditors (Mohle v. Tschirch, 63 Cal. 381).
See, also, cases cited below under the particular subdivisions of this section,
Acts Held to be Special.-On the other hand, the following acts have been held to be special within the meaning of this section: An act providing for boards of election commissioners in cities and counties having one hundred and fifty thousand or more inhabitants, that being an arbitrary classification without reference to the existing classification by general law (Denman v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 96, 43 Pac. 516); the “McClure Charter,” because it only applied to consolidated city and county governnrents of a designated population (Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242); a provision of the county government act providing for salaries in addition to fees of constables in townships numbered 1 to 10 in counties of one particular class (Lougher v. Soto, 129 Cal. 610, 62 Pac. 184); an act giving laborers employed by corporations by the week or month a lien for wages (Slocum v. Bear Valley Irr. Co., 122 Cal. 555, 68 Am. St. Rep. 68, 55 Pac. 403); a law depriving certain persons arbitrarily of the right to participate in an election (Spier v. Baker, 120 Cal. 370, 52 Pac. 659); an act directed at and applicable to one particular named municipal corporation, and taking away a large part of its territory (People v. Common Council, 85 Cal. 369, 24 Pac. 727; Fisher v. Police Court, 86 Cal. 158, 24 Pac. 1000); an act to remedy the failure on the part of the tax collector to publish the names of the owners, etc. (Moore v. Patch, 12 Cal. 265.)
See, also, cases cited below under particular subdivisions of this section.
Subdivision 19: The act of March 30, 1878, and amendments (Stats. 1887, p. 90), known as “Bank Commissioners' Act," is not in contravention of the subdivision. (People v. Superior Court, 100 Cal. 105, 34 Pac. 492.)
Subdivision 25: Section 2853 of the Political Code, prohibiting ferries or toll bridges within a mile of established toll bridges or ferries, is not in conflict with this section of the Constitution. (Fortani v. Smith, 114 Cal. 494, 46 Pac. 381.)
SALE OF STOCK ON MARGINS.
Sec. 26, Art. IV. The legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale in this state of lottery or gift enterprise tickets, or tickets in any scheme in the nature of a lottery. The legislature shall pass laws to regulate or prohibit the buying and selling of the shares of the capital stock of corporations in any stock board, stock exchange, or stock market under the control of any association. All contracts for the sale of