Page images
PDF
EPUB

us 38022.23 3

Amendments to Constitution

and

Proposed Statutes

with

Arguments Respecting the Same

[ocr errors]

To be Submitted to the Electors of the State of California at the

General Election on

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1914
Caériennia-scotec tatay o ülete

Index, Certificate and Form of Ballot will be found in last pages
Proposed changes in language are printed in black face

Provisions to be repealed are printed in italics

CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

AND PRINTED AT THE STATE

PRINTING OFFICE

1914

20994

u838022.23

tant

dleanero EXTRA SESSIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 32 adding section 4a to article VI of constitution.

Authorizes governor to call extra sessions of district courts of appeal; requires such call when requested by chief justice of supreme court or presiding justice of district court of appeal; provides that governor, chief justice and presiding justice shall each select one of the three judges of such sessions from judges of any district court of appeal or superior court who shall serve without further compensation; provides for assignment of causes thereto, jurisdiction thereof, and termination of such sessions. Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 32—A justice of the court of appeal of the district in

resolution to propose to the people of the State which any such extra session is being held or to of California, an amendment to the constitu

be held shall have power to assign causes and tion amending article VI thereof, by inserting therein a new section to be known as section

appeals pending in said court to such extra ses4a, providing for the holding of extra sessions

sion, for consideration and decision. Said extra of the district courts of appeal, and the selec- session of said district court of appeal and the tion, designation and appointment of members said justices pro tempore holding the same, shall of any court of appeal or judges of any supe- have jurisdiction to determine all causes, appeals, rior court, to act pro tempore as justices of

proceedings and matters that shall be so assigned said district courts of appeal to hold such extra sessions thereof.

to them for consideration and decision during

such extra session, with like force and effect as The legislature of the State of California, at

though such causes, appeals, proceedings and this fortieth session, commencing on the 6th day

matters had been heard by, submitted to and deof January, 1913, two thirds of all of the members elected to each of the houses of said legisla

termined by the duly elected, qualified and acting ture voting in favor thereof, hereby propose that

justices of said district court of appeal of the article VI of the Constitution of the State of Cal- district in which such extra session is, or extra ifornia be amended by adding thereto a new sec- sessions are being held, or by such court. No tion, to be known as section 4a, which section

justices pro tempore of the court of appeal of any shall read as follows:

district shall be qualified to participate upon the PROPOSED LAW.

hearing of any cause in which, or in any proSection 4a. The governor of the State of ceeding in which he has acted as judge in any California may, and at the request of the chief other court. No justices pro tempore of any justice of the supreme court of the State of Cali- court of appeal of any district shall receive any fornia shall direct that an extra session or extra compensation for acting as such, other than that sessions of the district court of appeal of any attached to the office which he holds at the time district be held, and upon the request of the pre- of his selection as such justice pro tempore, but siding justice of the district court of appeal of shall be entitled to his actual expenses. Whenany district, shall direct that an extra session of ever any justice pro tempore of the supreme such court be held. Each extra session of such court is for any reason disqualified or unable to court of appeal of any district shall be held by act in a cause pending before it, or any extra three judges who may be justices of the court of session thereof, the governor or justice by whom appeal of other districts of the State of Califor- he has been selected shall forthwith select some nia, or judges of any superior court within the other justice of the district court of appeal or state, one of whom shall be selected by the gov- judge of the superior court to act in his place. ernor of the State of California, another by the At any time after the causes and matters which chief justice of the supreme court of the State of shall have been assigned to such extra session California, and the other by the presiding judge of any district court of appeal or the justices pro of the court of appeals of the particular district tempore thereof, shall have been finally deterin which the extra session is, or extra sessions mined, the supreme court of the State of Califorare to be held. Said justices and judges so nia, by an order entered upon its minutes, may selected shall be justices pro tempore of said terminate such extra session or extra sessions. courts of appeal for the purpose of holding such extra session or sessions of said court. More

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ASSEMBLY CON. than one extra session of the court of appeal of

STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 32. any particular district may be held at one time; The proposed amendment does not in any reprovided, that each section shall be held by three spect change or modify any of the existing conjustices pro tempore consisting of justices of the stitutional provisions, but merely supplements district courts of appeal of other districts, or those relating to the supreme court and district judges of the superior court, selected as herein- courts of appeal by conferring upon them such above set forth. During any extra session of the additional authority as will enable them, only, district courts of appeal, the presiding justice of however, when the exigencies of the situation the district court of appeal of such district may require, and then at practically no expense, to sit during such extra session with the said jus- speedily dispose of pending litigation, to the intices pro tempore holding such extra session, or calculable benefit of the litigant. he may designate one of the said justices pro The great length of time intervening between tempore so holding said session, to act during the commencement of an action and its final tersuch extra session as presiding justice thereof ; mination by the supreme court, without any provided, however, that whenever the presiding fault on its part, has caused frequent complaint justice of the district court of appeal of such dis- and brought about severe criticism of the judicial trict shall so sit during such extra session with system. In many cases this delay has worked said other justices pro tempore holding such ex- great hardship upon the parties, and ofttimes tra session, the concurrence of the three justices results in a miscarriage of justice.

This is parpro tempore holding such session, or of two of ticularly true of the litigant whose entire subsaid justices and such presiding justice of the stance is involved in the litigation. district court of appeal of such district, shall be As the state becomes more populous litigation sufficient to pronounce a judgment of said dis- increases. While the creation of additional trial trict courts of appeal of said district in any of judges permits this litigation to be rapidly disthe appeals, actions, proceedings or matters heard posed of in the lower court, it increases the burby, or submitted to such extra session of said dens of the appellate courts without providing court or the justices thereof. The presiding any remedy for their relief.

Two

the

If this constitutional amendment is adopted a sided over by judges called from the superior method will be devised, practically without ex- courts, which courts, at the present time in most pense to the state, by which the increased num- counties, are already congested and need the ber of appeals will be rapidly taken care of and attention of all their judges. Justices of courts finally concluded with little delay.

of appeal of one district would not be called to The supreme court has the right, which it fre- preside in extra sessions in another district, bequently exercises, to transfer appeals pending cause where congestion exists in one district before it, to the district courts of appeal. If now, sufficient cases are transferred to an unextra sessions of the district courts of appeal congested district to relieve the situation. If are held, the supreme court can transfer to such there is sufficient regular business to justify any district courts of appeal much of the litigation

considerable number of extra sessions, a new then pending be ore it, so that when one or two district should be provided instead. extra sessions are held, no valid reason will exist Third—The method provided for calling these why all pending litigation in the supreme court,

extra sessions is unsafe and ill-advised. Any not actually under submission at the time such one of five officials can compel the holding of an extra sessions are held can not be readily dis- extra session, while the supreme court, only, has posed of so that at the termination of such extra power to adjourn it. sessions a case will appear for argument upon Fourth-It is questionable whether a judge of the next calendar called by it, after the filing of the superior court could act as such, and at the the transcript on appeal. When this is accom- same time sit in extra session as justice of the plished, no further necessity will exist for the courts of appeal. It is practically certain he holding of any extra session of the district courts could not sit in trial and also sit upon appeal in of appeal until either court gets behind in its the same case, particularly in cases where mowork.

tions for new trial had been denied in the lower The determination of litigation by an extra court, and came up before the same judge for session of the court of appeal does not deprive hearing on appeal. Another question would arise the litigant of having such appeal finally passed as to the power of the regularly elected justices upon by the supreme court, because, as we all of a district court of appeal to grant or deny a know, the litigant is entitled to apply to the su- rehearing of a case decided in extra session, for preme court for a rehearing, which rehearing

the aniendment states that the decisions of extra will of course be granted in the event the deci- sessions shall have "like force and effect as sion of the court of appeal is incorrect.

though such causes * * * had been * * * deterJAMES J. RYAN,

mined by the duly elected * * * justices." Assemblyman Twenty-third District. Fifth-This amendment would have the effect

of creating further congestion in the superior ARGUMENT AGAINST ASSEMBLY CONSTI.

cor.rts, and would not be of material relief to the

supreme court. A readjustment of TUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 32.

Classes of cases that should properly come up The reasons why Assembly Constitutional on appeal in the supreme court, or in the courts Amendment No. 32 should not be adopted are of appeal, would relieve the congestion in the briefly enumerated as follows:

supreme court without creating congestion in First-The principal objection to this amend- the superior courts. ment is that it is not needed. Investigation of SixthThe language of this particular amendthe records of the courts of appeal, for the past ment is very confusing in parts, particularly its ten years, shows that the calendars are cleared reference to justices pro tempore of the “Suregularly in remarkably short time, and that preme Court,” when the context clearly indicates there is absolutely no congestion in these courts. that it means “Court of Appeal," and also where Inquiry made of those justices of the courts of the word "section" is used in one place, but eviappeal who are available to the writer indicated dently intended the word "session." that the justices themselves do not consider ex- For the above mentioned reasons, the writer tra sessions at all necessary.

believes this amendment should be defeated. Second–The extra sessions providcd for by

H. STANLEY BENEDICT, this amendment would necessarily have to be pre

Assemblyman Sixty-third District. MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. Senate Constitutional Amendment 12 amending section 41 of article VI of constitution.

Omits from present section word “criminal,” thereby providing that no judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for misdirection of jury or improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless after examination of entire cause, including the evidence, court is of opinion that error complained of resulted in miscarriage of justice. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 12, a reso- as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as lution to propose to the people of the State of

to any matter of procedure, unless, after an exCalifornia an amendment to the constitution of said state, by amending section four and one

amination of the entire cause, including the evihalf of article six thereof, relating to lls.

dence, the court shall be of the opinion that the The legislature of the State of California, at its

error complained of has resulted in a miscarregular session commencing on the sixth day of

riage of justice. January, in the year one thousand nine hundred Section 41, article VI, proposed to be amendthirteen, two thirds of all the members elected ed, now reads as follows: to each of the two houses of said legislature vot

EXISTING LAW. ing in favor thereof, hereby nronnses an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Califor

Section 43. No judgment shall be set aside, or nia. by amending section four and one half of

new trial granted in any criminal case on the article six thereof, to read as follows:

ground of misdirection of the jury or the im

proper admission or rejection of evidence, or for PROPOSED LAW.

error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, Section 4]. No judgment shall be set aside. or unless. after an examination of the entire cause new trial granted, in any case, on the ground of including the evidence, the court shall be of the misdirection of the jury. or of the improper ad- opinion that the error complained of has remission or rejection of evidence, or for any error sulted in a miscarriage of justice.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SENATE CON- successful party committed some technical breach STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 12.

of legal procedure. As Professor Roscoe Pound The decisions of the supreme court of Cali

of Harvard has said: "Our appellate courts do fornia abound with instances where verdicts of

not try the case; they only try the record; they juries and judgments of the lower courts have

only decide whether all the outworn subordinate been reversed for failure to comply with trivial

rules of the game were carefully followed." and technical requirements that in no way affect

Former President Taft, in speaking of the exthe merits of the action. As a result of such

cessive and unnecessary delay in legal procedure, reversals, which usually occur from three to five

declared : “There is no subject upon which I feel years after the commencement of the action, the

so deeply as upon the necessity for reform in the courts are compelled to take up a further three

administration of both civil and criminal law." or five or more years of their time in going over

As an example of such delay in California it has the same controversy, often with a practical mis

been shown that for all the cases reported in carriage and denial of justice to

Vol. 145 of the California Reports, an average of

one of the parties to the action and always to the inconve

1003 days, or almost three years, elapsed between nience of other litigants. The purpose of Senate

the filing of an appeal and the final judgment, Constitutional Amendment No. 12 is to help over

while the average time for the completion of a come these unnecessary delays, put an end to

case through all the courts was 2175 days, or such interminable litigation, if possible, and to

almost six years.

Much of this delay is OCchange the trial of cases from a test of the

casioned by the number of cases appealed on craftiness, ability and skill of opposing attorneys

purely technical grounds. In England, where into an honest endeavor to mete out justice as

new trials are not granted on such grounds, the between the parties. This rule has heretofore

court of appeals, acting for 32,000,000 people, been adopted in criminal cases and has been

grants only about twelve new trials per year. satisfactory. As property is less valuable than

In contrast to this, in one county alone in the life or liberty it should be equally satisfactory

United States, with a population of less than in civil cases.

WILLIAM KEHOE,

100,000 there were 38 appeals in one year, of State Senator First District.

which 17 were reversed for technical errors,

which did not go to the merits of the case. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 12 is de

The adoption of the proposed amendment will signed to prevent the reversal of civil cases by

clothe the appellate courts with power to review courts of appeal on purely technical grounds.

all points involved in a case--the facts as well In 1911 the writer had the privilege of intro

as the law. If the decision of the lower court is ducing in the legislature an amendment to the

found to be substantially correct, that judgment constitution, which provided that in all criminal

will be affirmed. The incentive for getting error cases, no judgment should be reversed, on ap

into the record for the sole purpose of securing peal, except when such judgment would result in

an appeal being removed, few cases will be apa substantial miscarriage of justice. This amend

pealed and litigants will be saved both delays and ment was unanimously adopted by both houses

expense. It will invest the appellate courts with of the legislature, was overwhelmingly ratified

power to sustain a verdict rendered by a jury by the people, and is now known as section 43 of

when such verdict is in accordance with the article VI of the state constitution. The present

facts, even though it violates some archaic rule proposed amendment seeks to extend the same

of procedure that under existing law would reprovision to civil cases. It, likewise, was adopted

quire a reversal of the decision. by the unanimous vote of both the senate and

Since 1911, when the application of this prinassembly.

ciple to criminal cases was adopted, the appellate The purpose of our judicial system is to try courts have repeatedly referred to the increased cases on their merits. Often this purpose, how- power granted them to disregard errors not afever, is thwarted by having decisions of the fecting the merits of a case, and by the extension lower courts reversed because certain rules of of these powers to civil cases, the machinery of procedure were broken. In scores of cases ap

our courts will be materially simplified and subpellate judges have reluctantly set aside meri- stantial justice done to litigants. torious decisions on no other ground than that

A. E. BOYNTON, during a long and heated trial, counsel for the

State Senator Sixth District. PLACE OF PAYMENT OF BONDS AND INTEREST. Senate Constitutional Amendment 13 amending section 133 of article XI of constitution.

Authorizes any county, municipality, irrigation district or other public corporation, issuing bonds under the laws of the state, to make same and interest thereon payable at any place or places within or outside of United States, and in domestic or foreign money, designated therein. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 13, a reso

PROPOSED LAW. lution proposing to the people of the State of California an amendment to section thirteen

Section 133. Any county, city and county, and one half of article eleven of the Constitu

city, town, municipality, irrigation district, or tion of the State of California, relating to the

other public corporation, issuing bonds under place of payment bonds, and the interest

the laws of the state, is hereby authorized and thereon, of counties, cities and counties, cities,

empowered to make said bonds and the interest municipalities, irrigation districts, and other

thereon payable at any place or places within or

outside of the United States, and in any money, public corporations, and to the money in which such bond's and interest may be made payable.

domestic or foreign, designated in said bonds. The legislature of the State of California, at its

Section 133, article XI, proposed to be amend

ed, now reads as follows: regular session, commencing on the 6th day of

EXISTING LAW. January, in the year one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, two thirds of all the members Section 131. Nothing in this constitution conelected to each of the two houses of said legisla

tained shall be construed as prohibiting the state ture voting thereon, hereby proposes to the quali

or any county, city and county, city, town, municfied electors of the State of California that sec

ipality, or other public corporation, issuing bonds

under the laws of the state, to make said bonds tion thirteen and one half of article eleven of said

payable at any place within the United States constitution be amended so as to read as follows: designated in said bonds.

Four

EXEMPTING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FROM

TAXATION. Senate Constitutional Amendment 15 adding section la to article XIII of constitution.

Exempts from taxation buildings, grounds within which same are located not exceeding one hundred acres, equipment, securities and income used exclusively for educational purposes, of any educational institution of collegiate grade within this state not conducted for profit. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 15, a reso- Third--California has already by special con

lution to propose to the people of the State of stitutional amendments exempted some schools California an amendment to the Constitution of

from the taxation of their educational "plants,” the State of California by adding a new sec

such as Stanford University, and Cogswell Polytion to said constitution to be numbered section one a of article thirteen thereof, relating

technical College in San Francisco. The proposed to exempting certain property of educational

amendment will abolish discrimination, treating institutions of collegiate grade from taxation. all colleges alike. The legislature of the State of California at its Fourth-The proposed amendment will not take regular session, commencing on the sixth day of a dollar from the state treasury itself, since the January in the year nineteen hundred thirteen, state revenues are no longer derived from the two thirds of all the members elected to each of general property tax. This amendment merely the two houses of the said legislature voting in enables the localities where colleges are situated, favor thereof, hereby proposes to the qualified and which therefore receive the chief benefit electors of the State of California, the following from them, to exempt them from taxation. amendment to the Constitution of the State of Fifth-The total cost of this proposed policy is California, by adding a new section thereto to be insignificant. The taxes paid in 1912-1913 by all numbered one a of article thirteen thereof, to the institutions known to be affected by this read as follows:

amendment amounted to only $20,976, a sum PROPOSED LAW.

wholly inconsiderable from the standpoint of Section la. Any educational institution of col- county and city government, but imposing a legiate grade, within the State of California, not heavy burden on the slim financial resources of conducted for profit, shall hold exempt from tax- the colleges. ation its buildings and equipment, its grounds Sixth-The amendment as drawn is carefully within which its buildings are located, not ex- safeguarded against possible abuse by the followceeding one hundred acres in area, its securties ing limitations: and income used exclusively for the purposes of (a) It exempts only institutions of collegiate education.

grade.

(b) Such institutions can not be conducted for ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SENATE CONSTI- profit. Any institution receiving an income from TUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 15.

students in excess of its expenses would be ex

cluded from exemption. First-Every state in the union, except California, exempts college property from taxation.

(c) The exempt property is limited to buildCalifornia should not be the only state to dis

ings, equipment, and grounds, with securities and courage the investment of private capital in

income, "used exclusively for the purposes of

Real estate held for investment or

education." higher education. In all other states the income from benefactions to colleges may be used wholly

revenue will be taxed just as at present, only the for the purpose for which such benefactions are educational “plant” actually in use being exempt

from taxation. made ; here it must be in part diverted to such objects as road building and the lighting of streets.

(d) The land which a college will hold exempt Thus California suffers a distinct disadvantage

as constituting its “campus" is limited to 100 with patrons of education, such as the great

acres, thus preventing the abuse of the law by an philanthropic boards of the East. The state

institution holding large areas ostensibly should assure outsiders desiring to make gifts for

“campus” but actually for investment and profit. education in California that every dollar will be

Seventh-So thoroughly convinced

the used for the purpose intended.

lawmakers that this amendment is right and fair Second-The various colleges of the state are

that it passed the last legislature with but one performing a service of the highest importance,

dissenting vote in either chamber. at a cost far in excess of the amount derived

A. E. CAMPBELL, from tuition. The state should not add the bur

State Senator Seventeenth District. den of taxation to their other expenses, which

LEE C. GATES, are met by endowment and by private gifts.

State Senator Thirty-fourth District. EXEMPTING VESSELS FROM TAXATION. Senate Constitutional Amendment 17 adding section 4 to article XIII of constitution. Exempts from taxation until and including January 1, 1935, except for state purposes, all vessels over 50 tons burden, registered at any port in this state and engaged in transportation of freight or passengers. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 17, the houses of said legislature voting in favor

resolution proposing to the people of the State thereof, hereby proposes to the electors of the of California, an amendment to the Constitu

State of California, that a new section be added tion of the State of California, by adding a

to article XIII of the Constitution of the State of new section to article XIII thereof, to be designated as section four of said article XIII of

California, to be known and designated as secthe Constitution of the State of California, re

tion four of article XIII of the Constitution of lating to the exemption of vessels engaged in the State of California, and to read as follows: commerce from taxation.

PROPOSED LAW. Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That the legislature of the State of Califor- Section 4. All vessels of more than fifty tons nia, at its regular session, commencing on the burden registered at any port in this state and sixth day of January, nineteen hundred thirteen, engaged in the transportation of freight or pastwo thirds of all the members elected to each of sengers, shall be exempt from taxation except for

Five

as

were

a

« PreviousContinue »