INTRODUCTION.

Prefatory Note. It is unnecessary to make any extended explanation in laying before the Bar of California a work upon the constitution of California. The edition published by Mr. Robert Desty in 1879 was excellent in its time, but has long ceased to be of practical aid to the profession. In preparing this volume, the aim has been to present in the most convenient form the decisions of our own courts, only referring to the decisions of other courts on subjects which our own have left untouched. While the main subject is the present constitution of this state, the book also contains the former constitution, the constitution of the United States, and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

New features.-Some new and important features are the following: (1) A table showing all statutes of this state which have been declared unconstitutional in whole or in part. There are over one hundred and thirty such statutes scattered through the statute books, (+)

and this is the first time any table of them has been made. (2) A table of all California citations to either of the California constitutions. This will permit a hasty examination of all decisions citing any particular section of the constitution. (3) A table of parallel sections in the constitutions of 1849 and 1879, which will also prove a useful feature.

P

T

V

Annotations.-As to the form of the annotations, the aim has been to present in the most condensed form the principles of the decisions, rather than any statement of the facts of the cases. In other words, we have attempted something more than a mere digest, or a hotch- 0 potch of the syllabi of the decisions.

HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION.-California was admitted into the Union of states September 9, 1850. The first constitution was adopted in convention October 10, 1849, ratified by the people November 13, 1849, proclaimed December 20, 1849. This constitution was amended in 1857 and 1871, and the article on the judicial department was revised in 1862.

The present constitution was adopted in convention March 3, 1879, ratified by the people May 7, 1879, and went into effect July 4, 1879, so far as it related to election of officers, etc., and January 1, 1880, for all other purposes. Various amendments have been made to it from

2

a

time to time, but no radical revision of it has been effected.

CONSTITUTIONAL

CONSTRUCTION.

The constitution of this state, unlike the federal constitution, is not to be considered as a grant of power, but rather as a limitation upon the powers of the legislature. (People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46; People v. Jewett, 6 Cal. 291; People v. Rogers, 13 Cal. 159; People v. Twelfth District Court, 17 Cal. 547; Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 161; Ex parte McCarthy, 29 Cal. 395.)

It is, however, to be considered as a grant of power to the other branches of the government. (People v. Jewett, 6 Cal. 291.)

Words and phrases.-Where a word, having a technical, as well as a popular, meaning, is used in the constitution, the courts will accord to it its popular meaning, unless the nature of the subject indicates, or the context suggests, that it is used in its technical sense. (Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal. 111; Oakland Pav. Co. v. Hilton, 69 Cal. 479, 11 Pac. 3; Oakland Pav. Co. v. Tompkins, 72 Cal. 5, 12 Pac. 801; Miller v. Dunn, 72 Cal. 462, 14 Pac. 27; People v. Eddy, 43 Cal. 331.)

Prospective construction.-Provisions of the constitution are to be considered prospective and not retrospective unless a contrary inten

tion clearly appears. (Gurnee v. Superior

Court, 58 Cal. 88.)

Reasonable

construction.-A

construction

should be adopted which tends to certainty, security, and substantial justice, in preference to that which involves uncertainty, insecurity, and inevitable injustice. (San Gabriel Co. v. Witmer Co., 96 Cal. 623, 29 Pac. 500, 31 Pac. 588.)

But where a provision is plain and unambiguous, it cannot be changed by the courts to avoid what may seem to be an absurdity or injustice. (Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 549, 21 Pac. 958.)

All the provisions of the constitution must be read together, and effect given to all of them. They must receive a practical common-sense construction, and be considered with reference to the prior state of the law, and the mischief intended to be remedied. (People v. Stephens, 62 Cal. 209; French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 518.)

MEANS OF CONSTRUCTION-Debates of the convention. The debates of the constitutional convention may be referred to for the purpose of construing the provisions of the constitution. (People v. Chapman, 61 Cal. 262; People v. Stephens, 62 Cal. 209; Isola v. Webber, 13 Misc. Rep. 100; Higgins v. Prater, 91 Ky. 6; State v. Doron, 5 Nev. 399; Bank of