*1 science for himself, to resist invasions of it the case of others; or their may, change ease of circumstances, become his It him, too, own. behooves in his give own case to no example concession, betraying right the common inde- pendent opinion, answering questions which the faith laws have left between and himself.” (Emphasis sup- God plied.)
In the last analysis, when the moment of comes, decision private citizen as to judge, quiet as well it is in the glow own mind and of his own courage that Americanism thrives. And it is the cumulative decision of millions, official, citizen as well as that Americanism is reborn each moment. foregoing reasons,
For would reverse the Appellant’s petition rehearing May for a was denied J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., 1957. petition granted. should be Apr. 24, 1957.] In Bank. No. 19450. F.
[S. AND PRINCE, Appellant, v. CITY COUNTY DANIEL OF FRANCISCO, SAN *2 Appellant. Ralph for Speiser and Lawrence Wertheimer Amici Weigel as Beardsley Stanley A. Charles E. Appellant. on of Curiae behalf Peddicord, Chief Holm, City Attorney,
Dion Walker R. City Deputy Deputy City Desky, M. Attorney, and Robert for Attorney, judg a appeal plaintiff from
SHENK, by an the J. This is ment action recover taxes in favor of the defendant in an to paid declaratory protest for under relief. as such plaintiff of War a World II veteran exemptions
filed from the applications for and obtained tax city county years 1951-1952, 1952- defendant for the tax provisions 1953-1954, pursuant 1953 and to of section the 1% of of That article XIII the Constitution. parts pertinent as “The follows: $1,000 every of this who has amount of of resident State Army, Corps, or Navy, served the Marine Guard Coast (Revenue the Cutter) Revenue Marine of United Service war, of in a cam- (1) peace, in time or in time (2) States of has paign expedition which medal been or for service in by Congress the either States, issued the United discharge an . . . shall therefrom, case has received honorable ...” exempt be from taxation. was to add 1952, the Constitution amended
On November exemption, limiting of article XX the veterans’ tax section 19 entitled exemptions, well other tax to those otherwise as as the or state overthrow of federal who do not advocate the support foreign or the government force violence against the United government event hostilities authorizing implementation legislation to ef- States, provisions the of the constitutional amendment. fectuate (Stats. 1953, July 1, on Accordingly, ch. § and Taxation 32 was added the Revenue 3114) applications must providing that Code contain an oath specified by that section. The constitutional amendment and implementing legislation are the same as those set forth and considered in of this court in First Unitarian Angeles, ante, p. 419 508]. April On 12, 1954, plaintiff filed in the office of the assessor of the city defendant county an application for a property tax exemption year for the tax 1954-1955. The application form furnished the assessor contained, for the time, first required by nonsubversive affidavit section 32 of the Revenue and Taxation plaintiff Code. The failed and application refused to containing the oath. Pacts stipulated appear which otherwise to entitle the tiff to exemption. was denied. The plaintiff paid protest the tax under and commenced this action to recover the same. He claims that he is entitled to the compliance without with the constitutional amend- ment and statutory passed pursuance enactment thereof. He contends that section article XX of the Constitution and section 32 of the Taxation Code violate provisions of the state and federal In support Constitutions. argues provisions his contentions he that the of our state *3 infringe upon aspects law various of freedom of that speech; because section 32 of the Revenue Taxation Code does apply not to all of those entitled to tax it con- special legislation stitutes process he is denied due equal protection of the and that law, fallaciously it infers engage that those who do not prohibited oath in the advocacy. urged It is also that the constitutional amendment subject. is void because it embraces more than one In of First the case Unitarian Church Los v. County Angeles, ante, p. Los 419 508], P.2d this [311 purposes court declared the of the constitutional amendment implementing legislation applied and its to churches and to be held both enactments valid. same reasons and exemption apply pro to tax claims conclusions veterans in XIII of the vided for section article Constitution. W/& traditionally Veterans have been selected the states and special nation for numerous bounties benefits. be, part in at in least, are said to consideration for These encourage public interest and welfare and as services (See example. their Allied Archi others to follow ment to 209, 192 431 P. 30 Payne, tects’ Assn. v. Cal. A.L.R. [221 Riley, 611 607, Board v. 188 Cal. Veterans’ ; 1029] Welfare
475 Los Unitarian In the case of First 631].) P. [206 it was to, above referred County Angeles, Angeles v. through by the state objectives pursuit of such held that amendment employed in the constitutional the means any way violate implementing legislation does not are rea imposed right of free that the classifications speech; any constitutional they do not violate proper; that sonable of the requirement of section 32 oath provision, and that the controlling is That case Code is valid. Taxation fallaciously 32 contention that section here. The further engage oath who do not subscribe infers that those Legis merit. The prohibited activity is without perfect may require that claimant properly lature compliance with exemption by 1 implementation of section regulations in reasonable % Byram, (Chesney 15 v. article XIII of the Constitution. 1106].) Finally, 460, P.2d Cal.2d 465 [101 amendment violates the constitutional tiff’s contention that Constitution, of the which 24 of article IY section subject subject, one which “Every act shall embrace but Article expressed title,” is also without merit. shall be “Legislative Depart with IY of the Constitution deals been limited to be and has ment” and 24 is intended (See legislative Constitution. Mc enactments under the parte Haskell, ; Ex 198 26 P. Riley, Clure Cal. v. [243 429] 527].) 32 P. L.R.A. Cal. [44 why be re- good appears should not No reason veterans regulations and comply reasonable quired to with the same provided by 32 of the Revenue Taxa- conditions applied all other included tax as are tion Code claimants. judgment affirmed. J., J., Spence, McComb,
Schauer, J., For thereasons stated TRAYNOR, J., opinion in First Unitarian Church dissenting reverse ante, p. would Angeles, *4 judgment. J., stated in dis For thereasons CARTER, J., Angeles senting opinion in First Unitarian I would Angeles, ante, reverse the