before dissolution thereof. The earnings of the husband subsequent to the dissolution are neither community nor separate property. In re Spencer, 82 Cal. 110,

Reference is made to this section in Spreckels . Spreckels, 116 Cal. 341, where it is said, the constitution does not mention "community property," but does define the separate property of the spouses. And it is held in that case that the amendment of section 172 of the Civil Code of 1891, forbidding the husband to make a gift of community property without the written consent of the wife, does not affect the husband's unlimited power of disposition and management of community property acquired prior to the amendment.

SECTION 9. No perpetuities shall be allowed except for eleemosynary purposes.

Const. 1849, Art. XI, Sec. 16.

This section is a renewal of section 16, article XI, of constitution of 1849. The perpetuities here prohibited are such as were obnoxious to the common law, as the same is adopted in this state by act of April 13, 1850. [Stats. p. 219. See Political Code, section 4468.] The adoption of the common law left undisturbed the distinction recognized by the constitution between prohibited perpetuities (including private trusts), and charities. The latter are not included in the common law rule. The courts of this state have inherent equity jurisdiction over trusts for charitable purposes. Estate of Hinckley, 58 Cal. 457.

The grant by congress of the Yosemite valley and the act of the state accepting it [Stats. 1865-6, p. 710], did not create a gift for charitable uses, such as may be regulated or enforced by courts of equity, nor can the obligations of the state in relation thereto be enforced by the courts of the state. People v. Ashburner, 55 Cal. 517.

The state, as parens patriæ, superintends the management of all public charities or trusts, and in these matters acts through her attorneygeneral; and it is both the right and duty of that officer to prosecute suits to remedy abuses in such trusts. The People ex rel Ellert v. Cogswell, 113 Cal. 134.

The term "eleemosynary," as used in this section of the constitution, is not confined to almsgiving or charity, but includes in its scope all charitable purposes, including schools as well as asylums, hospitals and religious institutions. The enforcement of charitable uses cannot be limited to any narrow and stated formula, but must expand with the advancement of civilization and the increasing needs of men, calling for the establishment of new charitable uses. People ex rel Ellert v. Cogswell, 113 Cal. 134.

The act of 1885 [Stats. p. 49], relating to trusts for charitable purposes is not unconstitutional, and a trust conveyance for the establishment of a polytechnic school, pursuant to the provisions of that act, does not create a perpetuity such as is forbidden by the consti

tution. The People ex rel Ellert v. Cogswell, 113 Cal. 134.

The courts cannot declare valid, not even with the consent of parties, such trusts as are opposed to the express mandate and policy of the law. In re Walkerly, 108 Cal. 659.

SECTION 10. Every person shall be disqualified from holding any office of profit in this state who shall have been convicted of having given or offered a bribe to procure his election or appointment. Const. 1849, Art. XI, Sec. 17.

SECTION 11. Laws shall be made to exclude from office, serving on juries, and from the right of suffrage, persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes. The privilege of free suffrage shall be supported by laws regulating elections and prohibiting under adequate penalties all undue influence thereon from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.

Const. 1849, Art. XI, Sec. 18.

The "primary election law" of 1897 [Stats. p. 115], is held unconstitutional as being special legislation and also as a legislative attempt to curtail the right of free suffrage, and it is held also to be an attempt to extend the right to classes of persons outside of those mentioned in the constitution. [Section 1, article II, Const.] Spier v. Baker, 120 Cal. 375.

The legislature cannot require criminal punishment of members of a board of supervisors who vote and act in favor of a discharge of duties of their office, although the majority of the board vote and act otherwise and become

guilty of malfeasance in office. A whole board cannot be ousted from office because a majority violate the law. [Garoutte, J.] Morton v. Broderick, 118 Cal. 488.

SECTION 12. Absence from this state, on business of the state or of the United States, shall not affect the question of residence of any person. Const. 1849, Art. XI, Sec. 19.

SECTION 13. A plurality of the votes given at any election shall constitute a choice, where not otherwise directed in this constitution.

Const. 1849, Art. XI, Sec. 20.

SECTION 14. The legislature shall provide by law for the maintenance and efficiency of a state board of health.

SECTION 15. Mechanics, material men, artisans and laborers of every class, shall have a lien upon the property upon which they have bestowed labor or furnished material for the value of such labor done and material furnished; and the legislature shall provide by law for the speedy and efficient enforcement of such liens.

but

This section is not self-executing, requires legislation. Spinney v. Griffith, 98 Cal. 149. And the provisions of laws enacted to carry it into effect must be complied with, in order to make the lien effectual. Where a contractor failed to file his contract with the recorder, the contract price being more than one thousand dollars, he was not entitled to a lien. Morris v. Wilson, 97 Cal. 644.

The constitution has provided, as the only means which the state has for the payment of its debts, the exercise of the sovereign power of

taxation. And for each political subdivision the rule is the same [Sec. 18, Art. XI], and one furnishing labor or materials to the state knows to what he must look for payment. He becomes a creditor of a specific fund, and has no rights except with respect to such fund. One cannot sue the state, unless expressly authorized by the legislature. [Sec. 6, Art. XX] Under the constitution and laws of the state, there is no right of lien in favor of mechanics or others against any public building, and no such lien can be enforced against a public school building. Mayrhoffer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110. See also Russ & Sons Co. v. Crichton, 117 Cal. 699.

Commenting on Latson v. Nelson, [XI Pac. L. J. 589]. Held, the present constitution has not changed the rule that where a "valid contract" existed between the owner and contractor, the former could not be made liable to sub-contractors beyond the amount fixed therein. The provision of section 1184, Code of Civil Procedure, declaring that in certain cases the sub-contractor, laborer and material man shall be deemed to have contracted directly with the owner, and have a valid lien for labor and material, are not unconstitutional. [So. Cal. Lumber Co. v. Schmidt, 74 Cal. 625.] Kellogg v. Howes, 81 Cal. 170. To same effect see D. H. L. Co. v. Gottschalk, Id. 641.

The mechanics' lien law [sections 1183 to 1199] was sustained as constitutional in Quale v. Moon, 48 Cal. 478, and Hicks v. Murray, 43