in criminal cases shall be paid the same fees as jurors, in the discretion of the judge (Turner v. Siskiyou Co., 109 Cal. 332, 42 Pac. 434); a provision of the County Government Act that, in all counties of one particular class, certain additional fees shall be collected for filing the inventory in estates of deceased persons (Bloss v. Lewis, 109 Cal. 493, 41 Pac. 1081); the Primary Election Law of 1895, being confined in its operation to counties of the first and second class (Marsh v. Supervisors, 111 Cal. 368, 43 Pac. 975); a law giving the district attorney supervisory control over fees of justices of the peace and constables in criminal cases (Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Cal. 544, 47 Pac. 372); an act fixing different rates of liability upon stockholders in different corporations (French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 518); the provision of the County Government Act that no supplies, etc., shall be purchased for the county from any person who has not had a business in the county for a year prior to the purchase (Van Harlingen v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 53); the provision of section 1197 of the Political Code forbidding the name of a nominee to be placed upon the ballot more than once (Murphy v. Curry, 137 Cal. 479); a statute providing that all county printing must be let to persons who have been established in business in the county for more than one year (Van Harlingen v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 53, 66 Pac. 44); the act of March 21, 1905, regarding rates of interest on chattel mortgages, and fixing a different penalty for its violation when committed by corporations than when committed by individuals (Ex parte Sohncke, 148 Cal. 262); a law regulating the rate of interest on chattel mortgages on certain classes of property (Ex parte Sohncke, 148 Cal. 262).

Particular acts held valid. On the other hand, the following acts have been held not to be obnoxious to the provision of this section, and valid:

An act whose object it is to legalize the assessment of taxes in San Francisco, since it is not a general, but a special, law (San Francisco v. Spring Valley W. W., 54 Cal. 571); an act establishing different fee bills for separate counties, not being of a general nature (Ryan v. Johnson, 5 Cal. 86); an act to remedy the failure of the tax collector to Constitution-2

publish the names of the owners, etc., it being not a general, but a special, law (Moore v. Patch, 12 Cal. 265); the provision of the County Government Act of 1893, empowering certain of the county officers in counties of one class to appoint a certain number of deputies, whose salaries are fixed by the act and made payable out of the county treasury, although in other counties the principal must pay the salaries of his deputies (Tulare Co. v. May, 118 Cal. 303, 50 Pac. 427, overruling Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, 33 Pac. 66, and Walser v. Austin, 104 Cal. 128, 37 Pac. 869); an act subjecting trespassing animals to attachment without the affidavit required in other cases of attachment (Wigmore v. Buell, 122 Cal. 144, 54 Pac. 600); a law providing that assessors in counties of one particular class shall pay all percentage for the collection of poll taxes into the county treasury (Summerland v. Bicknell, 111 Cal. 567, 44 Pac. 232); an act providing for police courts in all cities of a designated population, and providing that it shall go into effect upon the expiration of the term of office of the present police judges of such cities (People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436, 18 Pac. 413); an act providing for the commitment of minor criminals to nonsectarian charitable corporations at the expense of the county (Boys' and Girls' Aid Society v. Reis, 71 Cal. 627, 12 Pac. 796); an ordinance prohibiting public laundries in designated parts of a city (In re Hang Kie, 69 Cal. 149, 10 Pac. 327); an ordinance making it unlawful for any person to conduct a laundry within certain limits without a certificate from the fire wardens as to the condition of the heating appliances, and forbidding the operation of any laundry between 10 P. M. and 6 A. M., or on Sunday (Ex parte Moynier, 65 Cal. 33, 2 Pac. 728); an act making it unlawful to keep open any place of business on Sundays, except barber-shops,_bathhouses and hairdressing saloons (Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6); the Revenue Act of 1853, since the legislature may discriminate in the imposition of taxes on certain classes of persons, occupations or species of property, taxing some and exempting others (People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46); an act prohibiting all persons, except innkeepers and the like, from keeping open their places of business on Sundays

for the transaction of business (Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 678); a statute establishing a limitation upon actions for the recovery of lands in San Francisco under the Van Ness Ordinance (Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366); an ordinance making it unlawful to play upon any musical instrument in any saloon, etc., after midnight, and for any female to be in any saloon, etc., after midnight (Ex parte Smith & Keating, 38 Cal. 702); an act giving to laborers working upon mines only a lien for their wages (Quale v. Moon, 4 Cal. 478); a state revenue law making different provisions in the different counties with regard to the enforcement of the payment of delinquent taxes (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 43 Cal. 398); the provisions of section 1373 of the Political Code, making the county in which the indictment was found chargeable with the support of insane criminals (Napa State Hospital v. Yuba County, 138 Cal. 378); an act providing that in divorce suits the final decree shall not be entered until the expiration of one year from the filing of the decision (Deyoe v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. 476); the act regulating the practice of medicine and surgery (Ex parte Gerino, 143 Cal. 412); the case of Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, approved as to the constitutionality of an "act to encourage and provide for general vaccination in the state of California" (French v. Davidson, 143 Cal. 659); an act making it unlawful to buy or sell quail (Ex parte Kenneke, 136 Cal. 527, 69 Pac. 261); the act providing for the application of the salaries of public officers to the payment of their debts (Ruperich v. Baehr, 142 Cal. 190).

As to the uniform operation of the County Government Act, which goes into effect at different times as to different counties, see Freman v. Marshall, 137 Cal.

159.

Sec. 12. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power. No standing army shall be kept up by this state in time of peace, and no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner;

nor in time of war, except in the manner prescribed by law.

Sec. 13. In criminal prosecutions, in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; to have the process of the court to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and to appear and defend, in person and with counsel. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The legislature shall have power to provide for the taking, in the presence of the party accused and his counsel, of depositions of witnesses in criminal cases, other than cases of homicide, when there is reason to believe that the witness, from inability or other cause, will not attend at the trial.

SPEEDY TRIAL.-Section 1382 of the Penal Code is mandatory, and the court has no discretion to deny the defendant a speedy trial as provided_by that section. (People v. Morino, 85 Cal. 515, 24 Pac. 892.)

An accused person held in custody an unreasonable length of time without trial will be discharged upon habeas corpus. (In re Begerow, 133 Cal. 349, 65 Pac. 828; People v. Moran, 144 Cal. 48, 77 Pac. 777.)

When good cause is shown for the delay, a dismissal will not be ordered when the trial has been delayed more than sixty days. (People v. Moran, 144 Cal. 48, 77 Pac. 777.)

רב

e

PUBLIC TRIAL.-The word "public" is used in this section in opposition to the word "secret."' (People v. Swafford, 65 Cal. 223, 3 Pac. 809.)

The trial should be public in the ordinary, common-sense acceptation of the term, the doors should be open, the public admitted with due regard to the size of the courtroom, the conveniences of the court, the right to exclude objectionable characters and youths of tender years, and to do other things which may facilitate the proper conduct of the trial. (People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 37 Pac. 153.)

An order excluding from the courtroom all persons except the officers of the court and the defendant is in violation of this provision and is presumed to be prejudicial. (People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 37 Pac. 153. But see People v. Swafford, 65 Cal. 223, 3 Pac. 809.)

Where a defendant during a trial becomes excited and indulges in profane and abusive language, thus creating commotion among the spectators and interrupting the trial, an order excluding from the courtroom everyone except the officers of the court, reporters of the press, friends of the defendant, and persons necessary for him to have on his trial, is proper. (People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 222, 14 Pac. 849.) The defendant may waive the right to a public trial. (People v. Tarbox, 115 Cal. 57, 46 Pac. 896.) The defendant may waive his right to be confronted with the witnesses. (People v. Bird, 132 Cal. 261.)

WITNESSES.-The legislature has power to limit the compulsory attendance of prisoners confined in the state prison to cases of necessity, the existence of which is to be determined by the court. (Willard v. Superior Court, 82 Cal. 456, 22 Pac. 1120.)

RIGHT TO APPEAR AND DEFEND.-This provision only gives the defendant the right to appear and defend in person and with counsel, and does not give him the right to appear by counsel when he is himself absent. Therefore, when a defendant in a criminal case escapes after conviction, and pending an appeal, the appeal will not be heard in his absence, but will be dismissed. (People v. Redinger, 55 Cal. 290.)