121 267

Fox, J., in Davies v. City of Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 50, cited under section 6, article XI. Also in opinion by Thornton, J., in Oakland Pav. Co. v. Hilton, 69 CaÏ. 480, 512, considering an actual entry in full in the books as mandatory, and as excluding a mere reference to the matter.

The constitution does not require that a bill shall be read on three several days in each house after an amendment thereof. Concurring opinion in People v. Thompson, 67 Cal. 630.

SECTION 16. Every bill which may have passed the legisla. ture shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor▾ If he approve it, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to the house in which it originated, which shall enter such objections upon the journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, it again pass both houses, by yeas and nays, two-thirds of the members elected to each house voting therefor, it shall become a law, notwithstanding the governor's objections. If any bill shall not be returned within ten days after it shall have been presented to him (Sundays excepted), the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the legislature, by adJournment, prevents such return, in which case it shall not become a law, unless the governor, within ten days after such adjournment (Sundays excepted), shall sign and deposit the same in the office of the secretary of state, in which case it shall become a law in like manner as if it had been signed by him before adjournment. If any bill presented to the governor contains several items of appropriation of money, he may object to one or more items, while approving other portions of the bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing ft, a statement of the items to which he objects, and the reasons therefor, and the appropriation so objected to shall not take effect unless passed over the governor's veto, as hereinbefore provided. If the legislature be in session, the governor shall transmit to the house in which the bill originated a copy of such statement, and the items so objected to shall be separately reconsidered in the same manner as bills which have been disapproved by the governor.

Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 17.

A city charter approved by the majority of the

members elected to both houses, and not passed as a bill and presented to the governor, is ineffectual as a mode of establishing inferior courts in cities. Such courts can only be established by law passed as a bill. People v. Toal, 85 Cal. 333, Beatty, C. J., dissenting, and see commissioner's opinion, 23 Pac. Rep. 203. The section is also referred to generally in Oakland Pav. Co. v. Hilton, 69 Cal. 480; Davies v. City of L. A., 86 Id. 50; People v. Toal, 85 Íd. 337.

The governor may object to one or more itemsnot mandatory. Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. 494. As to power of the court to go behind enrolled bill in order to determine whether it has been duly passed-in People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 213.

It was conceded in argument that the governor had a discretion in the matter of signing bills which cannot be controlled by the courts. And Held, by the court that as the legislature adjourned without hav ing returned to it by the governor the bill proposing amendments to sections 1, 8, 10, 11, of article XIII, and the governor not having signed the same, it never became a law. and the governor could not be compelled to issue his proclamation submitting said amendments to vote of the people. The legislature provides by bill for the submission, not the governor, and in this instance the bill never became a law. Hatch v. Stoneman, 66 Cal. 633.

SECTION 17. The assembly shall have the sole power of impeachment, and all impeachments shall be tried by the senate. When sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be upon oath or affirmation, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected. Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 18.

SECTION 18. The governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, controller, treasurer, attorney-general, surveyor-general, chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court, and judges of the Superior Courts, shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office; but judgment in such cases shall extend only to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the

118 483

state; but the party convicted or acquitted shall nevertheless be liable to indictment, trial, and punishment according to law. All other civil officers shall be tried for misdemeanor in office in such manner as the legislature may provide.

Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 19.

SECTION 19. No senator or member of assembly shall, during the term for which he shall have been elected, be appointed to any civil office of profit under this state which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which have been increased, during such term, except such offices as may be filled by election by the people.

Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 20,

The summary proceeding for the trial of civil officers for misdemeanor in office mentioned in section 772 Penal Code, and the manner of the trial without a jury, is within the power of the legislature. Woods v. Varnum, 85 Cal. 639.

SECTION 20. No person holding any lucrative office under the United States, or any other power, shall be eligible to any civil office of profit under this state; provided, that officers in the militia, who receive no annual salary, local officers, or postmasters whose compensation does not exceed five hundred dollars per annum, shall not be deemed to hold lucra

tive offices.

Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 21.

The word eligible refers to the capacity to hold, as well as to be elected to office. A person who was duly elected to a civil office under the state, and who was eligible to be elected and hold the same, can no longer hold it, after he has accepted and become incumbent of a lucrative federal office. People v. Leonard, 73 Cal. 230. The section is referred to in construing section 4, article X, with reference to salary and expenses of state prison directors. People v. Chapman. 61 Cal. 263.

SECTION 21. No person convicted of the embezzlement or defalcation of the public funds of the United States, or of any state, or of any county or municipality therein, shall ever be

eligible to any office of honor, trust, or profit under this state, and the legislature shall provide, by law, for the punishment of embezzlement or defalcation as a felony.

Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 22.

SECTION 22. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and upon warrants duly drawn thereon by the controller, and no money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the state treasury for the use or benefit of any corporation, association, asylum, hospital, or any other institution not under the exclusive management and control of the state as a state institution, nor shall any grant or donation of property ever be made thereto by the state; provided, that notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other section of this constitution, the legislature shall have the power to grant aid to institutions conducted for the support and maintenance of minor orphans, or half orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances-such aid to be granted by a uniform rule, and proportioned to the number of inmates of such respective institutions; provided further, that the state shall have at any time, the right to inquire into the management of such institutions; 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.

Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 23.

The state possesses power to appropriate funds for the celebration of the anniversary of important events, and may confer such power on municipal corporations. The appropriation $300,000.00 to erect buildings and maintain exhibit at the world's fair Columbian exposition, and providing such appropriation be disbursed through a commission to be appointed by the governor, was not unconstitutional. Daggett v. Colgan, 92 Cal. 53.

121 19

Where there is no other valid objection against an act of the legislature appropriating public money, it is sufficient for the act to state that officers thereby appointed shall receive a salary of two thousand dollars per annum, payable monthly out of any money in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated, without the language "there is hereby appropriated the sum," etc. When the legislature has clearly indicated its will as to the claim which is to be paid, and the fund from which it is to be paid, the constitutional requirement is satisfied, and no particular form of words is essential to make the appropriation valid. The act of 1889, (Stat. p. 421) providing for the appointment of three engineers as examining commissioners of rivers and harbors, and fixing a salary of $2400.00 per annum for each, payable monthly, and traveling expenses, to be paid out of any money in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated, designates with sufficient clearness the amount to be paid and the fund from which it shall be drawn to constitute an appropriation. Humbert v. Dunn, 84 Cal. 57.

It is a general custom, but not universal in this state, in passing appropriation bills to employ the words "appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated;" but neither in the constitution nor the codes is there any requirement that such act shall specify the fund out of which the appropriation shall be paid, nor is such specification usual. The act of March 14, 1889, (Stats. p. 149) appropriating the sum of $100,000 for the support and maintainance of the mining bureau, is sufficiently specific, and is not void because it fails to designate on what fund the warrant is to be drawn. Proll v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 220.

The act of March 15, 1883, (Penal Code, Sec. 1388) providing for suspension of judgment against criminal minors, and for their commitment to non-sectarian charitable institutions, and authorizing the court to direct the payment of a limited sum out of the county treasury of the county where such crimi