Slike strani

wash-houses or laundries except in a specified portion of the city, being general in its character, confers no special immunity or privilege, and is valid. In re Hung Kie, 69 Cal. 149.

An ordinance of the city and county of San Francisco requiring persons conducting a laundry or washhouse within certain prescribed limits to procure a certificate from the health office that proper drainage was provided for, and a certificate from the fire wardens that the heating appliances were in safe cordition, and prohibiting washing or ironing from ten o'clock P. M. to six o'clock A, M., and on Sunday, Held, constitutional. Ex parte Moynier, 65 Cal. 33.

Sections 300, 301, Penal Code, as they existed in 1881, prohibiting the keeping open of saloons, etc., on Sunday, are not unconstitutional as granting special privileges or immunities. Ex parte Koser, 60 Cal. 177, McKinstry, Sharpstein and Ross, JJ., dissenting.

SECTION 22. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

See Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 608, as to Secs. 5-9, Art. XI. People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624, as to Sec. 24, Art. IV.

This section, as a rule of construction applies to all sections of the constitution alike. Ewing v. Oroville M. Co., 56 Cal. 649. The following cases may also be consulted: People v. C. P. R. R. Co., 83 Id. 403; Davies v. City of L. A., 86 Id. 50. The word “may” in Sec. 16, Art. XII, expressly renders the section permissive. Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 83 Id. 494; Oakland Pav. Co. v. Hilton, 69 Id. 492, 512. Ex parte Wolters, 65 Id. 271; Matter of Maguire, 57 Id. 609.

SECTION 23. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

Const. 1849, Art. I, Sec. 21.


SECTION 21. No property qualification shall ever be required for any person to vote or hold office.

The fact that owners of lands in irrigation districts are non-residents of the district, and that the residents need not own land to entitle them to vote in elections affecting the organization, etc., of the district, is of no constitutional consequence. No property qualification can be required and only those who are residents of the district can, by the constitution, be permitted to vote at any election. It is no more than exists in every popular vote which involves the creation of a municipal debt or the creation of a municipal organization. In re Madera Ir. Dist., 92 Cal. 321.



SECTION 1, (Art. II.] Every native male citizen of the United 117 123 States, every male person who shall have acquired the rights 120 374 of citizenship under or by virtue of tbe treaty of Queretaro,

and every mule naturalized citizen thereof, who shall have become such ninety days prior to any election, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been resident of the state one year next preceding the election, and of the county in which he claims his vote ninety days, and in the election precinct thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or may hereafter be authorized by law; pro. vided, no native of China, no idiot, no insane person, no person convicted of any infamous crime, no person hereafter convicted of the embezzlement or misappropriation of public money,

and no person who shall not be able to read the constitution in the English language and write his name, shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector in this state; provided, that the provisions of this amendment relative to an educational qual ification shall not apply to any person prevented by a physical disability from complying with its requi. sitions, nor to any person who now has the right to vote, or to any person who shall be sixty years of age and upwards

the time this amendment shall take effect. (Amendment Itified at election Nov. 6, 1894.]

attorney-at-law, issued to such person in another state, will not entitle to admission in this state. In re Hong Yen Chang, 84 Cal. 163.

Residence in the election precinct for thirty days is just as essential a condition of the right to vote as is a residence in the county for ninety days, or in the state for one year.

Russell v. McDowell, 83 Cal. 70–81.

Persons can claim no constitutional right to vote in irrigation district matters on the ground of owning property there, nor urge such objection because only residents of the district are entitled to vote. In re Madera Ir. Dist., 92 Cal. 321.

Sections 1083-1084, Political Code are in exact language of this section. An information or indictment in this language is sufficient. People v. Neil, 91 Cal. 466.

This section is referred to as illustrating the proposition that there are infamous offenses among misdemeanors over which inferior courts have no jurisdiction in dissenting opinion of Paterson J., in Green v. Superior Court, 78 Žal. 568.

The former constitution did not require any length of residence in a precinct, and subdivision 3 of section 1239, Political Code, ceased to be law upon adoption of present constitution. Russell v. McDowell, 83 Cal. 70.

SECTION 2. Electors shall in all cases, except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest on the days of election, during their atiendance at such election, go. ing to and returning therefrom.

Const. 49, Art. II, Sec. 2.

SECTION 3. No elector shall be obliged to perform militia duty on the day of election, except in time of war or public danger.

Const. 1849, Art. II, Sec. 3.

SECTION 4. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his resence or absence while employed in the service of the United States, nor wbile engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learving; nor while kept at any almshouse or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.

Const. 1849, Art. II, Sec. 4.
SECTION 5. All elections by the people shall be by ballot.
Const. 1819, Art. II, Sec. 6.



SECTION 1. The powers of the government of the state of California shall be divided into three separate departments-the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person charged with the exer' ise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.

Const. 1849, Art. III, Sec. 1.

The act of March 20, 1891, (Stats. p. 182) in so far as it authorizes the county superintendent of schools to furnish the estimates for a tax for high school purposes, is invalid. He is an executive officer, and such powers are legislative in character, and should be vested in the supervisors. Approving Hughes v. Ewing, 93 Cal. 414; McCabe v. Carpenter, 36 Pac. Rep. 836 (Sec. 12, Art. XI).

The power of appointment to office is not exclusively an executive function, but so far as not regulated by the constitution may be regulated by law, and if the law so prescribes, may be exercised by the legislature. Com pare section 4, article XX, People ex rel. Waterman v. Freeman, 80 Cal. 233.

The act of 1889, (Stats. p. 69) creating a board of trustees with authority to select a building site and for erection thereon of buildings for home for feebleminded children, is not a delegation of legislative powers. People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211.

The act of March 21, 1885, (Stats. p. 218) amending

section 274, C. C. P., providing that the Superior Courts shall fix the salaries of the official reporters by an order entered upon the minutes of the court, such salaries to be paid out of the county treasuries as other salaries, is unconstitutional, because it imposes legislative functions upon the judiciary. The distinction between a legislative and judicial act is that the former establishes a rule governing and regulating in matters and transactions occurring after its passage, while the latter determines rights and obligations, whether in regard to persons or property, concerning matters or transactions which already exist and have transpired before the judicial power is invoked upon them. Smith v. Strother, 68 Cal. 194.

It has been held that the departments of which the constitution speaks and in respect to which it provides that no person employed in one shall be employed in either of the other two, are the departments of the state government, and not of the local governments. People v. Provines, 34 Cal. 520, reviews all the cases in this state up to that date upon this provision of the then existing constitution, and the conclusion reached in that case is adopted in Stande v. Election Commissioners, 61 Cal. 313.

The act of April 23, 1880, (Stats. p. 389) to promote drainage is void as containing a delegation of powers, and for other reasons. People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624. Doane v. Weil, Id. 334, decided on authority of People v. Parks, supra.



SECTION 1. The legislative power of this state shall be vested in a senate and assembly, which shall be designated "The legis lature of the state of California," and the enacting clause of every law shall be as follows: "The people of the state of California, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows."

Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 1.

Statutory and constitutional provisions are subject

| 119 428

« PrejšnjaNaprej »