Dittus v. Cranston

California Supreme Court Dec 18, 1959 No. Sac. 7096Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appropriation from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund to compensate fishermen for equipment rendered valueless by the anti-netting bill is constitutional, as it serves the purpose of protecting and preserving fish and game. Furthermore, the court found that the Board of Control possesses the implied authority to evaluate and adjust these claims under the provided legislative standards.

Issues

Is the appropriation for the payment of claims prohibited by the Constitution?
Can the appropriation be constitutionally administered by the Board of Control?

Disposition. peremptory writ of mandamus issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It thus appears that the appropriation promotes the purposes of section 25%, and, since the purposes of that section are public in character, it follows that there is no violation of section 31 of article IY of the Constitution”

“there is no law which precludes the Legislature from authorizing the board to examine and adjust claims after an appropriation has been made, and in one instance that has been called to our attention such authority was expressly given”

GIBSON, C. J.

The Budget Act of 1958 appropriated the sum of $594,089 to be paid from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund to the Secretary of the State Board of Control.

[286]

This sum was reduced by the Governor to $350,000, and petitioner filed a claim with respondent for a warrant in that amount. Respondent rejected the claim, stating that the attorney general had advised that its validity should be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. In this proceeding in mandamus petitioner seeks to compel respondent to honor her claim.

Two questions are presented for decision: First, is the sum appropriated to be expended for a purpose prohibited by the Constitution? Second, can the appropriation be constitutionally administered ?

There are certain fundamental rules which govern us in the consideration of these questions. Courts should exercise judicial restraint in passing upon the acts of coordinate branches of government; the presumption is in favor of constitutionality, and the invalidity of the legislation must be clear before it can be declared unconstitutional.

(Lundberg

County of Alameda,

46 Cal.2d 644, 652 [298 P.2d 1].) The power to determine the facts upon which appropriations are based rests exclusively in the legislative and executive branches of the government, and the function of the courts is to determine the issues of law presented by the face of the legislation and relevant facts of which they can take judicial notice.

(Stevenson

Colgan,

91 Cal. 649, 652 [27 P. 1089, 25 Am.St. Rep. 230, 14 L.R.A. 459].)

It appears from records of the State Board of Control that the purpose of the appropriation to petitioner is to provide money for the payment of claims of fishermen and fish processing companies arising out of the enactment of two statutes in 1957. One of the statutes, known as the anti-netting bill, closed certain waters to commercial fishing for shad and salmon. (Fish & G. Code, § 8670.) The other, which will hereafter be referred to as chapter 2099, declared that it was the public policy of the state to reimburse, where possible, persons whose boats, nets and other fishing equipment were rendered valueless by the anti-netting bill. Persons so affected were given permission to file claims with the Board of Control, which was to analyze and evaluate them and report to the

Dittus v. Cranston

AI Brief

GIBSON, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief