Longan v. County of Solano
Before: Ross
Synopsis
Constitutional Law—County Goveknment Act. — The title of the Act of the 14th of March, 1883, relating to county and township governments, fairly expresses the subject of the act, and is a sufficient compliance with the provision of section 24 of article iv. of the Constitution which declares that “ every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject shall be embraced in its title.”
Id.—Special Laws.—The provisions of the act relating to the fees and salaries of officers are part of the general law establishing a uniform system of county and township governments, and are not within the inhibition of the Constitution declaring that the legislature shall not pass local or special laws “ affecting the fees or salary of any officer.”
Id. — Classification of Counties.—Under the provisions of section 5 of article xi. of the Constitution, the legislature is required to regulate the compensation of county officers in proportion to duties, and for this purpose may classify the counties by population. Meld, that the legislature has the power to fix the number of classes required to carry out the purpose of the provision, and that the courts will not interfere with its determination.
Ross, J. Among the provisions of the present Constitution of this State are the following: —
“The legislature shall establish a system of county governments which shall be uniform throughout the State; and by general laws shall provide for township organization, under which any county may organize whenever a majority of the qualified electors of such county, voting at a general election, shall so determine; and whenever a county shall adopt township organization, the assessment and collection of the revenue shall be made, and the business of such county and the local affairs of the several townships therein shall be managed and transacted in the manner prescribed by such general laws.” (Art. xii. § 4.)
“ The legislature, by general and uniform laws, shall provide for the election or appointment in the several counties, of boards of supervisors, sheriffs, county clerks, district attorneys, and such other county, township, and municipal officers as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their terms of office. It shall regulate the compensation of all such officers in proportion to duties, and for this purpose may classify the counties by population.” .... (Art. xi. § 5.)
It is also declared that the legislature shall not pass local or special laws “regulating county and township business or the election of county and township officers,” or “creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, cities and counties, townships, election or school districts,” or, “affecting the fees or salary of any officer.” .... (Art. iv. § 25.)
In March, 1883, the legislature passed an act entitled, “an act to establish a uniform system of county and township governments.” (Stats. 1883, p. 299.) Among the provisions of the act is one classifying the counties by population for the purpose of regulating the compensation of the officers, and the compensation of the officers of the counties as thus classified is by the act fixed.
[124]The validity of the act is assailed on several grounds. In the first place, it is said to violate that provision of the Constitution which provides that every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject shall be expressed in its title.
As will have been noticed, the title is, “an act to establish a uniform system of county and township governments.”
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)