innocent, or for some lawful purpose, is subversive of constitutional right, in so far as it takes away the presumption of innocence. In re Wong Hane, 108 Cal. 682.

This section is referred to in discussing section 310 of the Penal Code, as enacted in 1895 [Stats. p. 247, Palm Ed.], requiring barber shops to be closed on Sundays and holidays after 12 o'clock M. in Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 470. See cases collected under section 3, article XIX, and sections 17, 18, article XX.

SECTION 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.

Const. 1849, Art. I, Sec. 2.

For the purposes of government, the protection, security and benefit of the people, municipal and quasi municipal corporations may be created, and the legislature may pass general laws which, from their nature, will be capable of enforcement in only particular portions of the state. In re Madera Ir. Dist., 92 Cal. 316.

This section is referred to in Currey v. Miller, 113 Cal. 645, in connection with the fee bill of 1895, where said act is held applicable to San Francisco.

SECTION 3. The state of California is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

As to federal jurisdiction within the territorial limits of the state, see People v. Collins, 105 Cal. 508.

SECTION 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this state; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness or juror on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.

Const. 1849, Art. I, Sec. 4.

The court is not justified in pronouncing any form of religious belief superstitious or contrary to public policy, when not followed by acts which are recognized as hurtful to society. So held with reference to certain religious views regarding the spirits of the dead and their communication with the living. (Spiritualism.) Newman v. Smith, 77 Cal. 23.

The Sunday Law, contained in sections 300 -301 Penal Code, as they existed in 1881, is not unconstitutional. Ex parte Koser, 60 Cal. 177, and Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6.

The provisions of section 397 of the Penal Code, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians, does not contravene the fundamental principles of liberty. People v. Bray, 105 Cal. 345.

SECTION 5. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require its suspension.

Const. 1849, Art. I, Sec. 5.

SECTION 6. All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor shall cruel or unusual punishments be inflicted. Witnesses shall not be unreasonably detained, nor confined in any room where criminals are actually imprisoned.

Const. 1849, Art. I, Secs. 5 and 6.

A person charged with any offense not punishable with death is entitled, before conviction, to be admitted to bail, as a matter of right, but a defendant charged with an offense punishable with death cannot be admitted to bail, when the proof of his guilt is evident or the presumption thereof great. Penal Code, sections 1270-1271. 66 'Proof is evident" and "presumption great," defined differently by different courts. Ex parte Curtis, 92 Cal. 188.

An ordinance of the city and county of San Francisco imposing a fine not less than $250.00 and not exceeding $500.00, or imprisonment. not less than three nor more than six months upon persons carrying concealed weapons (excepting public officers and travelers), is not unreasonable or excessive. Ex parte Cheney, 90 Cal. 617.

A municipal ordinance of San Francisco prescribed a punishment, not exceeding $1000.00 fine, or imprisonment not exceeding

six months, or both, for uttering, etc., profane and obscene language. Held, not void upon its face as imposing excessive fine or unusual punishment; and that whether the offense in any particular case is such as to justify such punishment must be determined by the trial court. In re Miller, 89 Cal. 41.

A sentence under section 1205 Penal Code, that defendant be imprisoned in state prison a definite time and pay a fine and be imprisoned until the fine is paid at the rate of one day for each dollar of the fine, is void so far as it provides for imprisonment on account of the fine after the stated term of imprisonment has been served. McFarland, J., concurring, alluding to Ex parte Arras, 78 Cal. 304, expresses his.doubt that a prisoner can be so punished, even in a county jail. Thornton, J., concurs only because Ex parte Arras must be regarded as expressing settled law in this state. In re Wadleigh, 82 Cal. 518. Compare Ex parte Sing Ah Tong, 84 Cal. 165.

A fine of nineteen thousand dollars, and order directing defendant retained in custody until fine be paid, ordered stricken from a judgment. [Citing In re Rosenheim, 83 Cal. 388. In re Collins, 23 Pac. Rep. 374.] People v. Hamberg, 84 Cal. 469.

For pleading in habeas corpus on account of excessive fine, see Ex parte Rosenheim, supra, and that when a court sentences a defendant to a term of imprisonment and to pay a fine, the imprisonment for non-payment cannot continue after the expiration of the term im

posed. In re Collins, People v. Hamberg, and cases cited in Ex parte Rosenheim, supra.

The determination of what is proper or excessive bail does not depend alone upon the amount of money which may have been lost to one party or secured to another by means of the offense committed, but it depends rather upon the moral turpitude of the crime, the danger to the public and the punishment fixed by law for the offense. In re Williams, 82 Cal. 183.

A person convicted of assault with a deadly weapon was sentenced to state prison for a term of two years and to pay a fine of $2000 and be imprisoned in said state prison until the fine be paid, or be satisfied, at the rate of $2 for each day. Imprisonment in state prison is accompanied by hard labor. Held, that for this offense the court had no authority to direct imprisonment in state prison on account of the fine. The court had no authority to impose hard labor as part of the punishment. Ex parte Arras, 78 Cal. 304.

The punishment prescribed by section 245 of Penal Code is not excessive, cruel nor unusual. Ex parte Mitchell, 70 Cal. 1.

Where a witness has been detained for ninety days, and there have been several continuances of the case which are not satisfactorily accounted for, he is entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus. Ex parte Dresser, 67 Cal. 257.

A person who has not been examined as a witness before a committing magistrate can