Imágenes de páginas


the Legislature.-Contra Costa R. R. Co. vs. Moss, 23 Cal., p. 323. The Legislature alone determines the question as to whether a railroad will or will not be a public benefit.-Napa Valley R. R. Co. vs. Napa County, 30 Cal., p. 435. Whether a given road will subserve the public need is a question for the Legislature and not for the Courts.-Sherman vs. Buick, 32 Cal., p. 255. The Legislature has the power to pass laws for the opening of "private roads."—Sherman vs. Buick, 32 Cal., p. 241. Private property cannot be taken for public use unless ample means of remuneration are provided.McCann vs. Sierra Co., 7 Cal., p. 121; San Francisco vs. Scott, 4 Cal., p. 114. The Legislature may declare that in ascertaining what is a just compensation to be paid to the owner of land taken for a railroad the benefit which may result to the remaining land of the same parcel shall be set off in satisfaction or part satisfaction of the particular land taken.-S. F. and Alameda and Stockton R. R. Co. vs. Caldwell, 31 Cal., p. 367. The provision that "just compensation " be made only requires that a certain and adequate remedy be provided by which the owner can obtain his compensation without unreasonable delay.-Gilmer vs. "Lime Point, 18 Cal., p. 229. Private property cannot be taken for public use unless compensation precede or accompany the taking. - Gillan vs. Hutchinson, 16 Cal., p. 153. Compensation for land tuken by a county for public use must precede or accompany the taking.–Johnson vs. Alameda Co., 14 Cal., p. 106. Private property cannot be taken from the owner for public use until compensation is paid or secured him, and such compensation must be made within a short period or the privilege of taking the property under the condemnation will be waived.-Bensley vs. Mountain Lake Water Company, 13 Cal., p. 306. The provision which requires payment for private property taken for public use does not apply where the property is destroyed to prevent the spreading of fre.-Surrocco vs. Geary, 3 Cal., p. 69; Dunbar vs. Alcalde of S. F., 1 Cal., p. 355. The Legislature may confer the right to enter upon land pending the proceedings for condernnation.-Fox vs. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 31 Cal., p. 538. The Legislature may prescribe the proceedings by which the taking of land for public use shall be effected, and the time at which, in view of the mode adopted, the taking shall be deemed complete.-Fox vs. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 31 Cal., p. 538. Land is not taken for “public use" until the last act prescribed by the mode of condemnation required to transfer the title is performed.-Fox vs. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 31 Cal., p. 538.


Liborty of Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and specch and press, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible

for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

Popular assemblies

SEC. 10. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together to consult for the common good, to instruct their Representatives, and to petition the Legislature for redress of grievances.

Uniformity of general laws.

general," but

Sec. 11. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

NOTE.-Laws may be absolute, or may depend upon contingency, etc.-Blanding vs. Burr, 13 Cal., p. 343. An Act to remedy the failure on the part of a tax collector to publish the names of the owners, etc., cannot be defeated upon the ground that it is not uniform in its operation. Such an Act is not “ “special."-Moore vs. Patch, 12 Cal., p. 265. The Legislature may pass a special law directing a Court to transfer an indictment for murder pending therein to another district for trial. The word “uniform " in this section does not mean “universal.” The section intends simply that the effect of all laws of a general nature shall be the same upon all persons who stand in the same relation to the law. The Legislature may deny to one man a privilege extended to another man without infringing the Constitution. It is only infringed in this respect when a privilege extended to one is denied to another on substantially the same facts.-Smith vs. Judge Twelfth Dist. Court, 17 Cal., p. 547. Separate fee bills may be passed for each county.-Ryan v. Johnson, 5 Cal., p. 86.


SEC. 12. The military shall be subordinate to the civil Military power. No standing army shall be kept up by this State in time of peace; and, in time of war, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

SEC. 13. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quar- Quartering tered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, except in the manner to be prescribed by law.


Sec. 14. Representation shall be apportioned accord- Represening to population. Sec. 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in Imprison

ment for any civil action, on mesne or final process, unless in cases dobt. of fraud; and no person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.

NOTE.—A sum ordered to be paid pending a divorce suit for counsel fees, etc., is not a debt within the meaning of the Constitution.-Ex Parte Perkins, 18 Cal., p. 60. In a suit to recover money received by a person as agent, such person cannot be arrested without showing fraudulent conduct on his part, or a demand upon him by the principal and a refusal by him to pay.-In the matter of Holdforth, 1 Cal., p. 438; see,

also, Soule vs. Hayward, 1 Cal., p. 345.

Sec. 16. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law Law

prohibited. impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.

NOTE.-Obligation of contracts.-San Francisco vs. Beideman, 17 Cal., p. 443; McCauley vs. Brooks, 16 Cal., p. 11; Montgomery vs. Kasson, 16 Cal., p. 189; McDaniel vs. Yuba County, 14 Cal., p. 444; Thornton vs. Hooper, 14 Cal., p. 9; Robinson vs. Magee, 9 Cal., p. 81; People vs. Woods, 7 Cal., p. 579; Dewey vs. Lambier, 7 Cal., p. 347; Stafford vs. Lick, 7 Cal., p. 479; Hunsaker vs. Borden, 5 Cal., p. 288; Smith vs. Morse, 2 Cal., p. 524. There is no difference in the inviolability of a contract between the grant of property to an individual and a like grant to a municipal corporation.—Grogan vs. San Francisco, 18 Cal., p. 590. A legislative grant is an executed contract; it cannot be destroyed nor the estate divested by any subsequent legislative enactment.--Grogan vs. San Francisco, 18 Cal., p. 590. If, when a judgment is

[ocr errors]

rendered, judicial sales are absolute and before a sale under the judgment takes place a law is passed allowing time for redemption, such law does not impair the obligation of contracts.-Moore vs. Martin, 38 Cal., p. 428. The Act of 1858 (Stats. 1858, p. 345), which provides that a person ousted from the possession of land in an action at law by a person claiming title under a foreign grant, which shall thereafter be rejected or so located as not to include the land recovered, may have his action against the plaintiff in the former action and the person in possession of the land, to recover back the possession of the land, together with the rents and profits thereof from the time he was so ousted, etc. In Rich vs. Maples, 33 Cal., p. 107, it was held that this Act was unconstitutional. The “Settlers Act" of 1856 held unconstitutional.- Billings vs. Hall, 7 Cal., p.

1. Statute of Limitations. Part of eleventh section of Act of 1856 (Stats. 1856, p. 56,) declared unconstitutional.-Lathrop vs. Mills, 19 Cal., p. 513. An Act of the Legislature divesting the title of the purchaser of property previously mortgaged by his grantor, by a foreclosure suit in which the mortgagor was alone defendant, would not be constitutional.-Skinner vs. Buck, 29 Cal., p. 253. An Act denying the right of sale under execution for the enforcement of a contract would probably be a vital assault upon the obligation of the contract; but a repeal of the right of redemption does not impair the obligation of the contract. The right to redeem is no part of the contract.-Tuolumne Redemption Co. vs. Sedgewick, 15 Cal., p. 515. The grant of a terry, bridge, or road franchise does not carry with it a restriction upon the granting power to make similar grants to other grantees, though the last grant decreases the value of the first.- Indian Cañon Road Co. vs. Robinson, 13 Cal., p. 519. Funding Act. Sharp vs. Contra Costa Co., 34 Cal., p. 291. The provision in a funding Act making it the duty of the county authorities to levy a certain rate of taxes annually as a Sinking Fund, enters into the contract, and cannot be repealed.-English vs. Supervisors of Sacramento, 19 Cal., p. 172. In McDonald vs. Maddux, 11 Cal., p. 187, it wils held that the Act of 1854, to fund the debt of Sacramento County, and which forbade the redemption of any warrants which accrued prior to a certain date, was valid. If the right of the holder of county warrants to payment thereof has been fixed by presentation, there being money for such payment then in the Treasury, he cannot be divested of that right by a subsequent Act of the Legislature.-Laforge vs.

Magee, 6 Cal., p. 650. An Act creating a Board of
Commissioners to examine into the legality of all
clains and demands outstanding against a county, and
for funding the same, and which declares that no such
demand or claim shall be a legal claim against the
county unless it is presented to and allowed by the
Commissioners, is in this last respect unconstitutional.
A creditor of a county cannot be compelled to accept
another and an essentially different mode of payment
from that provided by the laws in force at the time he
became such creditor.-Rose vs. Estudillo, 39 Cal., p.
274; citing McCauley vs. Brooks, 16 Cal., p. 11; Peo-
ple vs. Bond, 10 Cal., p. 566. An Act authorizing a
county to fund outstanding warrants which are not to
draw interest, and to make the bonds given in exchange
therefor bear interest, is valid.-Chapman vs. Morris,
28 Cal., p. 393.

Sec. 17. Foreigners who are or who may hereafter Rights of

foreigners. became bona fide residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment, and inheritance of property, as native born citizens.

Note.—This section gives bona fide resident aliens certain rights which may be enlarged but which cannot be abridged by the Legislature.—State vs. Rogers, 13

Cal., p. 159. This section only removes the common • law disability from aliens who are bona fide residents

within the State.-Norris vs. Hoyt, 18 Cal., p. 217.

SEC. 18. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, Slavory

prohibited. unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this State.


Sec. 19. The right of the people to be secure in their Search persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but for probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.


SEC. 20. Treason against the State shall consist only Treason in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or and how

punished. giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be con

49– VOL. II.--POL.

« AnteriorContinuar »