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.

matters on the

Persons can claim no constitutional right to vote in irrigation district ground of owning property such objection because only district are entitled to vote. In re Madera Ir. Dist., 92 Cal. 321.

there, nor urge residents of the

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 Cal. 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.

To the contention that the law in regard to reclamation districts is void because it requires a property qualification for voters, it is held, that if these quasi corporations are municipal corporations the contention is unanswerable. In re Madera Ir. Dist. 92 Cal. 320], but it is said there is a difference between irrigation districts, formed under the Wright act and these reclamation districts, and that these latter are not municipal cor

porations; the district was part of a scheme for conducting a public improvement, and an analogy to a street improvement and other local improvements is suggested, where it has often been provided that the work shall only be done upon application of owners of a majority of the land, and if the owners were authorized to select a committee to superintend the work there would be no difference in the principle applicable. People v. Reclamation Dist. No. 551, 117 Cal. 123.

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 attendance at such election, going to and returning therefrom.

Const. 1849, 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 presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States, nor while 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 learning; 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.

It being conceded that the witness had all the requisite qualifications of an elector of the Veteran's Home precinct, except the intention

to abandon his former residence and to adopt and make the Veteran's Home precinct his place of residence, the controversy is still further reduced to the simple question of fact as to whether or not he went to the Veteran's Home and remained there with such intent. Upon this point the uncontradicted testimony of the witness is sufficient to establish the point thus made. Stewart v. Keyser, 105 Cal. 463.

SECTION 5. All elections by the people shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; provided, that secrecy in voting be preserved. [Ratified at election held November 3, 1896.] [Original section.]

SECTION 5. All elections by the people shall be by ballot.

Const. 1849, Art. II, Sec. 6.

ARTICLE III.

DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS.

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 exercise 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, 102 Cal. 470 [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. Compare 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 feeble minded 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 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 be

fore 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 Staude 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.

This article relates to the state government and has no application to the local governments provided for in article XI of the constitution. [People v. Provines, 34 Cal. 520.] The power of delegation by local boards is confined to the discharge of duties ministerial in. character. Hoeley v. County of Orange, 106 Cal. 424.

ARTICLE IV.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

SECTION 1. The legislative power of this state shall be vested in a senate and assembly, which shall be designated "The legislature of the state of California," and the enacting clause of every law