People v. Dunn
Before: Thornton, Works
Synopsis
Constitutional Law—Enactment oe Laws—Journals oe Legislative Houses — Presumption. — It is not essential to the validity of a statute that it should affirmatively appear from the journals of the senate and the assembly that every act required by the constitution to be done in the enactment of a law has been done; nor will it be presumed, in the absence of such a showing, that such acts were not done.
Id. — Selecting Site for Building—Delegation of Legislative Functions. —A provision in an act of the legislature giving to certain persons the authority to select a site for a public building proposed to be constructed is not a delegation of legislative functions or powers.
Id.—Act for Single Purpose — One Appropriation.—The act of 1889, entitled “ An act to provide a permanent site for the California Home for the Care and Training of Feeble-minded Children, and to erect suitable buildings thereon,” has but one purpose, within the meaning of section 34 of article 4 of the constitution, and properly makes but one appropriation to carry out its object.
Opinion — Works
Works, J. This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, as controller of state, to issue his warrant for certain moneys which the rela[212]tors claim should be paid out of the appropriation contained in the act of the legislature, entitled “ An act to provide a permanent site for the California Home for the Care and Training of Feeble-minded Children, to erect suitable buildings thereon, and making an appropriation therefor.” (Stats. 1889, p. 69.)
The respondent resists the claim of the petitioners, on the ground that the said statute is unconstitutional and void, for five reasons, set forth in his return to the alternative writ, as follows: —
“ 1. Said bill was not read on three several days in the senate prior to its final passage, nor was it declared to be a case of urgency.
“2. Said alleged law was introduced, known in its various stages in the legislature, and passed as senate bill No. 194, which said bill was put upon its final passage in the assembly after it had been amended in its title, and in all its sections save section 5, and before and without being printed with the amendments thereto for the use of the members, in violation of article 1, section 15, of the constitution of this state.
“3. Said bill was not read at length upon its final passage, in violation of article 1, section 15, of the constitution of this state.
“ 4. Said bill or law is void, as it delegates legislative powers and functions to a board of trustees aided by two "citizens, the two bodies forming a commission clothed with legislative powers and functions.
“ 5. Said bill or law is void on its face. It is not a general appropriation bill, and does contain more,than one item of appropriation, and that for more than one single and • certain purpose, wherefor the' respondent prays that the writ be discharged, and that he go hence with his cost.”
The claim of the respondent is, that the journals of the two houses of the legislature do not show affirmatively that the bill was read three several times in the [213]
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)