« PrejšnjaNaprej »
may originate in either house, but may be amended or rejected by the other; and on the final passage of all bills they shall be read at length, and the vote shall be by yeas and nays upon each bill separately, and shall be entered on the journal; and no bill shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each house. Const. 1849, Art. IV, Sec. 16.
It is no objection that several bills were included in one resolution declaring that the bills specified presented cases of urgency. People v. County of Glenn, 100 Cal. 419.
Inferior Courts are required to be established in incorporated cities and towns by the legislature. [Art. VI, Sec. 1.] The legislature shall fix by law the powers, duties and responsibilities of the judges thereof. [Art. VI, Sec. 13.] No law shall be passed except by bill, and all laws passed shall be presented to the governor. [Art. IV, Secs. 15, 16.] Section 8, article XI, was not intended to authorize the creation of such courts by a city charter, approved by the majority of the members elected to both houses. Such charters must be consistent with and subject to the constitution and laws of this state. [Sec. 8, Art. XI.] The police court provided for in the charter of the city of Los Angeles, which charter was enacted by a resolution of both houses, and not by bill, is not lawfully constituted, and is without, jurisdiction. The judges thereof are not de facto judges. People v. Toal, 85 Cal. 333.
Inferior courts are to be established by the legislature [Art. VI, Sec. 1], and their juris
diction and powers are to be regulated by law. [Art. VI, Sec. 13.]
The constitution is not entirely consistent in the employment of words, for while it says no law shall be passed except by bill, and by section 8, article XI, it expressly provides for the enactment of city charters by approval of a majority of the members elected to each house. Such charters are laws, and a city police court may be created by such law. Dissenting opinion of Beatty, C. J., in People v. Toal, supra.
It is not necessary that the legislative journals should show affirmatively that a bill and its amendments were read on three several days, etc., and in the absence of a record not required by the constitution to be kept, it will be presumed that, in the passage of a bill, the legislature complied with all constitutional requirements. People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211.
[This point is raised in brief of counsel, but not directly passed on by the court, in Leonard v. January, 56 Cal. 1.]
The act of January 23, 1880 [Stats. p. 1], directing the state controller to transfer certain funds from the general to the school fund, was only read by title and enacting clause on the first two readings, and it is held that this was not a compliance with the constitutional provision, and that the act was not properly enacted. Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal.
This section is referred to in concurring opinion of 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 Cal. 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.
In Brooks v. Fischer, 79 Cal. 173, it is held that a municipal charter framed and adopted under the provisions of section 8, article XI, constitution, may be approved by a concurrent resolution of both houses of the legislature, it being expressly held that the legislature is one thing and the law making power of the state another; but the legislature cannot enact laws in any other mode than by bill. A concurrent resolution approving the appointment by the governor and surveyor general, of John Mullan, as an agent and attorney to represent this state in Washington in the matter of claims of this state against the United States, is not a "law," and a contract entered into with Mullan in pursuance of such resolution is made "without express authority of law," and the state is not estopped from asserting its invalidity. Mullan v. State, 114 Cal. 578.
SECTION 16. Every bill which may have passed the legislature 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 it, 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 herein before 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 Id. 337.
The governor may object to one or more items-not 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 passedin 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 having 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.