Ex parte Shrader
Before: Shafter
Synopsis
Power op the Legislature to delegate its Authority.'—It was competent for the Legislature, by statute, to delegate to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, power to make an order that “ no person shall establish or maintain any slaughter house, keep herds of more than five swine, keep or cure hides, * * slaughter cattle, * * pursue or maintain or carry on any other business or occupation, offensive to the senses, or prejudicial to the public health or comfort, in any part of the city and county, after the first day of August, 1866,” if it could have enacted such order in the form of a statute in the first instance.
Power op the Legislature.—The Legislature had the power to enact, by statute, such order, unless restrained by the Constitution.
Constitutional Restraints upon Legislative Power.—The provisions of the first Article of the Constitution, providing that “ acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness ” are inalienable rights, and that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” are untouched by said order, or the statute enacted by the Legislature, in pursuance of which said order was made. Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 678, is cited as authority.
Distribution op Powers op Government.—By the fourth Article of the Constitution, the powers of the Government are divided into three separate departments—legislative, executive, and judicial—and it is provided that neither of these departments shall exercise powers properly belonging to the others.
Legislative and Judicial Powers.—Legislative power prescribes rules of conduct for the government of the citizen or subject, while judicial power punishes or redresses wrongs growing out of rules previously established. The distinction lies between a rule and a sentence.
The Order op the Board op Supervisors not a Judicial Act.—The order in question does no more than lay down a rule for the future guidance of all men, • irrespective of calling. It neither charges or convicts the petitioner of anything, and is not the exercise of judicial power.
Power op the Legislature.—The Legislature has power, as well as the judiciary, to determine facts. Whether the act of doing so will be judicial or not, is dependent upon the use to which the facts are put when found. The fact that the Legislature, in the enabling statute in question, empowered the Board of Supervisors to determine what should be necessary “ for the preservation of the public health and the prevention of contagious diseases,” etc., and the fact that the Board, acting within the scope of its said authority, determined the characteristics and injurious tendencies of the several acts forbidden in said order, do not stamp a judicial character upon either the statute or order.
By the Court, Shafter, J.: The petitioner was convicted in the Police Court of the City and County of San Francisco of keeping and maintaining a slaughter house within certain limits, in violation of an order of the Board of Supervisors of the said city and county. The order is as follows : “ ISTo person shall establish or maintain any slaughter house; keep heards of more than five swine; cure or keep hides, skins or peltry; slaughter cattle, swine, sheep or any other kind of animal; pursue or maintain, or carry on any other business or occupation offen- . sive to the senses or prejudicial to the public health or comfort, in any part of this city and county, after the 1st day of August, 1866, west of San Bruno turnpike road and north of Islais Creek, except as otherwise provided by law.” A violation of the order is made punishable by fine or imprisonment.
The proximate question presented is, as to the power of the Board of Supervisors to pass this order; but the real or ultimate question is as to the constitutional authority of the Legislature to pass the Act, under and in pursuance of which the order of the Board was adopted. The Act referred to was passed April 25th, 1863. (Acts 1863, p. 540.) By its first section the Board of Supervisors of the City and County [281]of San Francisco is authorized, amongst other things, “ to make all regulations which may he necessary or expedient for the preservation of the public health and the prevention of contagious diseases.” Further on, the Board is authorized “ to prohibit and suppress, or to exclude from certain limits, or to regulate all occupations, houses, places, pastimes, amusements, exhibitions' and practices which are against good morals and contrary to public order and decency, or dangerous to the public safety.” It will be observed that the grant of power to the Board to legislate in respect to the public health is as broad as it is in relation to the public morals and safety. If the power fails in connection with either one of those purposes, it must fail as to all three.
It is apparent that the Legislature could confer power upon the Board to pass the order if it could have enacted it directly in the form of a statute in the first instance. The real question to be determined then is whether the power of the Legislature to legislate concerning the public health is so narrowed by constitutional restraints that it cannot regulate the business of slaughtering cattle in populous towns, by limiting its prosecution to particular localities or quarters therein. We must hold in favor of the power unless its unconstitutionality is clear. (Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 162.)
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)