49 Cal. 478 | Cal. | 1875
Lead Opinion
Rhodes, J., concurring: The first section of the Act of March 28, 1874, (Statutes 1873-4, p. 755), directed a vote to be taken of the qualified electors of Siskiyou county, whether a certain portion of Klamath county should be annexed to Siskiyou. If a majority of votes should be in the affirmative, the Act provides that Klamath county shall be abolished, and a portion of its territory shall be annexed to Siskiyou, and the remainder to Humboldt county. It is claimed on behalf of the relator, that this was a delegation of legislative power to the people of Siskiyou, and that for this reason the Act is unconstitutional and void.
Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there is a considerable conflict in the authorities on the questions whether an Act
In this case, the only proposition submitted to a popular vote was whether a portion of Klamath should be annexed to Siskiyou county, and if the vote was in the affirmative, then the county of Klamath was to be abolished and its territory annexed to Siskiyou and Humboldt counties, in the manner provided in the Act. The case, therefore, presents the naked question whether an Act annexing a portion of one county to another, and which is to take effect only in the event that a popular vote of one of the counties is in favor of the annexation, is a delegation of legislative power. It is to be observed that the Act related to a matter of purely local concern, in which the people of the district to be affected by it, were alone interested. In this respect it differs materially from the Local Option Liquor Law, so called, which was involved in Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 278. In that case the question was whether a statute authorizing a general law to be suspended in certain political subdivisions of the State, by a vote of the people of the district, was a delegation of legislative power. However the rule may be in that class of cases, it is settled, I think, by an overwhelming weight of authority in this and many other States, that in matters of purely local concern, it is competent for the Legislature to enact that a statute affecting only a particular locality shall take effect on condition that it is approved by a vote of a majority of the people whom the Legislature shall decide are those who are interested in the question. In Upham v. The Supervisors of Sutter County, 8 Cal. 379, the question was, whether an Act authorizing the location of a county seat, to be determined by a popular vote, was unconstitutional on the ground that it was a delegation of legislative power; and the Act was held not to be obnoxious to this objection. In Hobart v. The Supervisors of Butte County, 17 Cal. 23, the same objection was urged against an Act which authorized the Supervisors to issue
The legal proposition involved in the case is not affected by the fact that the electors of Siskiyou county only were required to vote on the question of annexation. The Legislature decided that there were sufficient reasons for abolishing Klamath county, and annexing a portion of its territory to Humboldt, and it may be that all or a majority of the voters of these counties petitioned the Legislature to that effect. But, entertaining a doubt whether the annexation of a large portion of the territory to Siskiyou county, accompanied with a condition that it should assume a corresponding proportion of the debt of Klamath, would not
I am, therefore, of opinion that the application for a peremptory writ of mandate ought to be denied, and it is so ordered.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially:
I concur in the judgment. By an Act repealing all laws relating to its organization, the Legislature might have dis-incorporated the county of Klamath, and then, by subsequent statute, might have annexed its territory to the counties of Siskiyou and Humboldt. The portions of the Act under consideration, which provide, on condition of a certain vote by the electors of Siskiyou, that “organization and government of the county of Klamath shall be abandoned,” are not inseparably connected with, nor do they necessarily depend upon the other portions of the same Act. It is well settled that, if a provision which is not obnoxious to objection, is found even in the same section with another which is repugnant to the Constitution, the one in itself valid and complete must be sustained, unless the two are so united as that it must be presumed that the Legislature would not have adopted the one without the other. The distribution into sections is purely artificial, and' the real point is whether the provisions are essentially and inseparably connected in substance. (Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379; Com. v. Hitchings, 5 Gray, 485.)
Doubtless the moral obligation rested upon the members of the Legislature to furnish local government to the inhabitants of the county of Klamath, and when that county was disincorporated, to provide for the payment of its debts, etc. They may or may not have discharged this duty by the statute under consideration. On that point I express no opinion. But assuming that they .have failed to
It is not necessary, therefore, to inquire whether those parts of the law can be upheld which relate to the annexation of the territory of the former county to the adjacent counties. The proceeding before us is against one claiming to be an officer of Klamath county, and does not involve the validity of those portions of the statute which refer to the disposition of the territory, etc., of Klamath after its disorganization.
It was undoubtedly within the power of the Legislature to disincorporate the county without making any provision in the same Act for the future local government of the territory. The only question here is whether the condition that the law shall take effect only in case of a vote by the citizens of Siskiyou, such as is mentioned therein, renders invalid that part of the law which provides for the disineorporation.
The statute of March 8,1874, did not submit to the voters of Siskiyou county the question, “Is the disorganization of Klamath county desirable or expedient?” The question was in effect, “Do you desire that a part of Klamath shall be attached to your county?” In ex parte Wall this Court held that a law could be made to take effect upon a condition provided it did not appear that the members of the Legislature had attempted to delegate to others their own exclusive function of determining the propriety and expediency of the law. This law, so far as it abolishes Klamath county, was a perfect law when it left the hands of the Legislature. It was to take effect on the happening of an event, which was not to be the exercise by any other person of the discretion and judgment which the Legislature were bound to exercise for themselves with respect to the subject of the
It is not the circumstance that a vote is made the condition which vitiates a statute; it is the transfer or attempted transfer to others of the responsibility of deciding the policy, wisdom and justice of a statute. If this power and responsibility can be delegated to a large number, it can be delegated—as was admitted by counsel—to one person; and a law affecting only the people of Shasta, or affecting all the people of the State could be made to take effect at the will of a single individual in Napa county. The "Local Option” statute attempted to transfer to the majority in a township (constituting no local government under the Constitution) the power to repeal or keep in force—as to that township—a general statute, previously in force throughout the State. It was an effort to delegate the power of determining the wisdom and expediency of the statute, and of
Treating the portions of the law in respect to the disorganization of Klamath as a separate enactment, I cannot say that there is here an attempt to transfer or delegate the power of determining the wisdom, propriety or expediency of the law.
Mr. Justice Niles did not express an-opinion.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially:
I concur in the judgment.