County v. Bank of Mendocino, 86 Cal. 255, and Ex parte Benjamin, 65 Cal. 311]; Journal Pub. Co. v. Whitney, 97 Cal. 284.

The question is suggested but not decided whether printing the great register is "job printing." And--

The board of supervisors, and not the clerk, must contract for the printing of the great register. An action cannot be maintained against the county for damages for violation of contract made by the clerk for printing great register. Trandzen v. San Diego County, 101 Cal. 320.

The publication of the list of candidates to be voted for at a general election (section 1194 Political Code) is a proper county charge as part of the county advertising. Johnson v. County of Yuba, 103 Cal. 540.

Section 3766 Political Code was amended in 1895, requiring the supervisors to contract for the publication of the delinquent list, and it is held that even if the supervisors neglect. their duty, in the premises, the tax collector has no authority to contract for such publication. Smeltzer v. Miller, 113 Cal. 164, and see the cases cited in brief of counsel page 163.

The present act being later in date than the amendment of 1895, would seem to leave the question practically as was decided in Journal Pub. Co., 97 Cal. 284.

SUBDIVISION 25: The county government act was repealed with reference to the validity of an ordinance imposing a license tax on the sale of spirituous liquors in Ex parte

Benjamin, 65 Cal. 310. The act went into effect (for the purpose involved) on the 14th of May, 1883, and the ordinance was adopted on the 16th of the same month at a session of the board commenced on the 7th of the month and continued from day to day. And it was further held that the act of March 13, 1883, concerning license taxes was repealed by the county government act passed the following day. Longan v. County of Solano, 65 Cal. 122.

Under the authority of section 12, article XI, constitution, and section 25, subdivision 27, of the county government act of 1883, the supervisors have power to appoint a license tax collector. People v. Ferguson, 65 Cal. 288.

Money voluntarily paid in satisfaction of an illegal license tax cannot be recovered back. O'Brien v. Colusa County, 67 Cal. 503.

Under the constitution, section 12, article XI, the supervisors of a county have power to levy and collect license taxes for regulation or for revenue or for both. So held as to a municipality under section 11, article XI, in In re Guerrero, 69 Cal. 90, and section 12 is equally as broad in favor of the power of supervisors.

The constitution, sections 11 and 12, article XI, gives power to the board of supervisors to levy and "provide for the collection" of license taxes, such power includes the right to appoint some suitable person, as the county tax collector, to collect the license tax. This power no longer remains with the legislature. Matter of Lawrence, 69 Cal. 609.

The board of supervisors have authority to appoint an agent to collect license taxes. County of Amador v. Kennedy, 70 Cal. 458.

An ordinance of the board of supervisors is not invalid because it fixes a higher rate of license for saloons in a village or town or city than at a wayside place in the country. County of Amador v. Kennedy, 70 Cal. 459.

Under section 4045 Political Code, it was held that an ordinance of a board of supervisors fixing the rate of county licenses is not invalid because not passed on the first Monday in October, if the matter of fixing the rate of licenses was considered by the board on that day, and continued from day to day, and the ordinance was finally passed as soon as practicable thereafter. At that time section 4032 of the code fixed the regular meetings of the board on the first Monday of May, August, November and February, but section 4045, subdivision 3, declared: "The board of supervisors of each county must, on the first Monday of October of each year, fix the rates of county licenses," etc. People v. Cole, 70 Cal. 60.

An ordinance of a board of supervisors which imposes a license tax upon every travelling merchant, hawker or pedlar who vends goods, wares, etc., other than the manufacture or production of this state, without requiring a license for vending the manufactures or productions of this state, is in conflict with the constitution of the United States [Sec. 8, Art. I], in that it is an attempt to

regulate commerce between the states. Ex parte Thomas, 71 Cal. 204.

Money paid for license under a void ordinance, for the purpose of avoiding a civil or criminal suit to enforce collection, must be deemed to have been paid voluntarily and cannot be recovered back. Maxwell County of San Luis Obispo, 71 Cal. 467.

v.

A license tax imposed by a board of supervisors on the business of selling liquors is not a penalty, but is in the nature of a debt due from the person conducting the business to the county; and an action to recover the tax is not barred in one year. County of San Luis Obispo v. Hendricks, 71 Cal. 243.

Supervisors cannot license a nuisance. Sullivan v. Royer, 72 Cal. 249.

The board of supervisors had power to appoint a license tax collector. Bonds given by such appointees are official bonds and should be given to "the state." Section 958 Political Code. People v. Stacy, 74 Cal. 375.

An ordinance passed by the supervisors, imposing a license upon the S. P. R. R. Co. for carrying freight or passengers for hire by means of railroad cars in the county, is void, as a tax upon the use of the franchise granted to that company by the government of the United States. Both the franchise and its use are beyond the taxing power of the state. [Following State v. C. P. R. R. Co. and State v. S. P. R. R. Co. 127 U. S. 1.] San Benito County v. S. P. R. R. Co., 77 Cal. 519.

It is provided by section 12, article XI of the constitution that the county may impose license taxes and provide the mode of collecting them. Neither the constitution nor general law provides for the collection of the license tax as a debt from the person failing to take out a license. If the ordinance of the supervisors provides that it may be collected by suit "in the name of the people," the action must be so brought, and not in the name of the county. County of Monterey v. Abbott, 77 Cal. 542.

The provision of subdivision 15, section 189, county government act as amended in 1889, [Stats. p. 283] requiring that portion of license taxes, imposed by the county, but collected on business conducted in a municipality, to be paid in to the treasury of the municipality, instead of into the county treasury, is unconstitutional, [Const. sec. 4, art. XI; sec. 11. art. I; sub's. 9, 13. sec. 25, art. IV] and contrary to general law. [Pol. Code sec. 3363.1 County of San Luis Obispo v. Graves, 84 Cal. 74.

For the purposes of the case it is conceded that the right to obtain a license for conducting ordinary avocations of life should not be made to depend upon the arbitrary will or pleasure of a board of police commissioners, or of a number of property owners within a given district [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356], but it is held, that the governing power of a municipality may prohibit the traffic in liquor altogether, provided only that it does