« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
UEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1879. A. R. Andrews, D. W. herrington,
William H. Prouty, James J. Ayres, S. G. Hilborn,
M. R. C. Pulliam,
Chas. F. Reed,
Jno. M. Rhodes,
Chas. S. Ringgold, Peter Bell,
Wm. Procter Hughey, Horace C. Rolfe,
Geo. W. Schell,
George A. Johnson, James McM. Shafter, Joseph C. Brown, L. F. Jones,
E. 0. Smith,
H. W. Smith,
Geo. Venable Smith,
E. P. Soule,
John C. Stedman,
D. C. Stevenson,
Chas. V. Stuart,
W. J. Sweasey,
Charles Swenson, Jonathan M. Dudley, J. F. Lindow,
R. S. Swing,
D. S. Terry,
S. B. Thompson,
W. J. Tinnin,
F. 0. Townsend,
P. B. Tully,
H. K. Turner,
Daniel Tuttle, J. A. Filcher,
Thomas B. McFarland, A. P. Vacquerel, Jacob Richard Freud, John Fleming McNutt, Walter Van Dyke, Abraham Clark Freeman, Wm. S. Moffatt,
Wm. Van Voorbies,
J. V. Webster,
Joseph R. Weller, V. A. Gregg,
Thorwald Klaudius Nelson, Patrick M. Wellin, Jno. S. Hager, Henry Neunaber,
John P. West,
Chag. C. O'Donnell, Wm. F. White,
John T. Wickes, Thomas Harrison, James O'Sullivan,
H. C. Wilson,
Jos. W. Winans, T. D. Heiskell,
James Martin Porter, N. G. Wyatt. Conrad Herold,
Note.—The following were also members of the convention, but did not sign the Constitution, being absent on the day when it was adopted: Barnes, Wm. H. L.; Berry, J.; Boggs, H. C.; Campbell, A., Jr,; Casserly, Eugene; Cowden, D. H.; Crouch, Robert; Fawcett, Eugene; Finney, Chas. G., Jr.; Miller, John F.; Noel, Alonzo E.; Wilson, Samuel M.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
ADOPTED IN CONVENTION, AT SACRAMENTO, MARCH 3, A. D. 1879; RATIFIED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ON WEDNES
DAY, MAY 7, 1879.
PREAMBLE AND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
We, the people of the state of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.—The names “The State of California" and "The People of the State of California" describe the same party, and a statute which requires a bond to be given in one name is satisfied by a bond given in the other. (People v. Love, 19 Cal. 676.)
FORM OF GOVERNMENT.–Our system is not a pure democracy, but a representative republican government. (Hobart V. Butte County Supervisors, 17 Cal. 23.)
Offenses, how prosecuted.
Liberty of speech and freedom of the press-Trials for libel.
Uniformity of laws.
Laws prohibited-Bills of attainder, ex post facto, etc.
Personal and property rights.
Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
PROPERTY.-The right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is one of the primary objects of government, is guaranteed by the Constitution, and cannot be impaired by the legislature. (Bill. ings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1.)
The right of protecting property is not the mere right to protect it by individual force, but the right to protect it by the law of the land, and the force of the body politic. (Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1.)
The right of property antedates all Constitutions. This right is invaded if the owner is not at liberty to contract with others respecting the use to which he may subject his property, or the manner in which he may enjoy it. (Stimson Mill Co. v. Braun, 136 Cal. 122, 89 Am. St. Rep. 116, 57 L. R. A. 726, 68 Pac. 481.)
A statute declaring that all contracts for the construction of buildings, with certain exceptions, must provide for the payment of the contract price in money, is in violation of this section. (Stimson Mill Co. v. Braun, 136 Cal. 122, 89 Am. St. Rep. 116, 57 L. R. A. 726, 68 Pac. 481.)
The right to acquire property is the right to use the proper means to attain the end; and the use of such means cannot be prohibited by the legislature, unless the peace and safety of the state require it. (Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502.)
An act requiring a party to pay for improvements put upon his land by a trespasser, against his will, is void. (Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1.)
So an act altering or destroying the nature or tenure of estates is void. (Dewey v. Lambier, 7 Cal. 347.)
The provision of section 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a failure to comply with the section by filing a good and sufficient bond with the building contract in an amount equal to at least twenty-five per cent of the contract price shall render "the owner and contractor jointly and severally liable in damages to any and all materialmen, and subcontractors entitled to liens upon property affected by said contract,” is an unreasonable restraint upon the owner of the property in the use thereof, and is an unreasonable restriction upon the power to make contracts, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. (Gibbs v. Tally, 133 Cal. 373, 60 L. R. A. 815, 65 Pac. 970; San Fran. cisco Lumber Co. v. Bibb, 139 Cal. 192, 72 Pac. 964; Montague & Co. v. Furness, 145 Cal. 205, 78 Pac. 640.)
An act authorizing the probate court to order a sale of the property of a decedent, when it is for the best interest of the estate, is valid. (Estate of Porter, 129 Cal. 86, 79 Am. St. Rep. 78, 61 Pac. 659.)
But such an act cannot affect estates of decedents who died before the passage of the act. (Brenham v. Story, 39 Cal. 179; Estate of Packer, 125 Cal. 396, 73 Am. St. Rep. 58, 58 Pac. 59; Estate of Freud, 131 Cal. 667, 82 Am. St. Rep. 407, 63 Pac. 1080.)
An ordinance requiring street-car transfers to be issued and deliv. ered within the street-cars from which the transfer is made, and received only within the car to which it is made, and forbidding any person to whom a transfer is issued to give away, transfer, or sell the same, is not in violation of this section. (Ex parte Lorenzen, 128 Cal. 431, 79 Am. St. Rep. 47, 50 L. R. A. 55, 61 Pac. 68.)
An act requiring litigants to take the oath of allegiance is not in violation of this section. (Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 293.)
An act making it unlawful to buy or sell quail is not in violation of this section. (Ex parte Kenneke, 136 Cal. 527, 89 Am. St. Rep. 177, 69 Pac. 261.)
A statute exempting a municipal corporation from liability for damages for injuries sustained by any person on its graded streets, but making the officers of the city liable therefor, is valid. (Parsons v. San Francisco, 23 Cal. 462.)
The act of 1907, page 122, prohibiting waste from artesian wells does not unconstitutionally interfere with private property. (Ex parte Elam, 6 Cal. App. 233, 91 Pac. 811.)