February 16, 1881 (4 pages)

The Daily Transéripit. NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA. Wednesday, February 16, 1881. aren POAT a8 ; Eolgeeaay o MINING INCONPORATIONS. . Jadge CaldwWell’s Decision. Berlaring Constitutional the Law. ae lating to Mining Companies’ Monthly Statements. Following is the,full text of Supe“rior Judge Caldwell’s decision inthe case of Wm. Smith vs. Wm, George, which suit was brought by plaintiff as-stoskholder in the Alpha Mining . “Company of Grass Valley against the . “defendant as officers of the same to “yecover the penalties under the law, Sec. 1 of the Act of April 23d, 1880, requiring the Directors of mining corporatious to perform ° ‘certain acts have been made applicable to all civil corporations throughout the State ? Private corporations in this State may be formed for any purpose for which individuals“inay lawfully « associate themselves. Private corporations may be formed for the improvement of the breed of domestic animals, It seems to me that a general law reqgiring the Direetors of of corporations to make monthly statenientsof the business of the corporation cond hardly be made applicable to such least there would not seem to be any . } good reason for thy making-of ~ the: law applicable to such a —— But the principal question= -here wander the Jaws of this State, _ facta suffioient to constitute a cause amoanting to $1,000, for his failure to post in a conspiouous place a monthly statement, onthe first day of each month, ef the company’s accounts: ‘It is alleged in:the amended complaint that at the times therein mentioned the Alphy Miuving Co, was a corporation created hy and existing and forined-thereunder for’ the parpose of mining, and’ that its principal place of business was in Grass Val_ ley, in this county, at which place it “has a® office, and that at said times the defendant and four others (naming them) were the directors of said ene ‘poration, and that the plaintiff was af said time and now isa stocklioider of said corporation, and holder of 2,000 shares of the capital stock thereof. z Section one of the Act of the Leg—. 1 ‘lature of this State entitled ‘“‘An Act amendatory of the Act entitled ‘An Act for the better protection of the stockholders in corporations formed under the laws of the-State-of —Cahifornia.foc-the. purpose of carrying on aud conducting the business of mining’, approved March 80th, 1874,.approved April 23, 1880, ” provides among other things as follows: ‘‘1t shall be the duty of Directors on the first Mouday of each-.and every moath, to'cause to be madéan item. _ ized account or balance sheet for the previous month, embracing full and complete statement-of-all disburse_ whom and to what use and*to: whom such disbursements or payments were made, or for what object or purpose the same were mades.also?a'l indebtedness or liablities < ine incurred or existing at the time, and for what the same was incurred, and the balance of money, ifany, onhand, Such account or balance sheet shali_ .be Gerified under eath by “the President and Secretary and posted in some oti haat place in the office of the company. ‘The complaint sufficiently alleges a failure on/. the part of the Directors of the corporation to comply with the requirements of that portion of gaid Section Ona to which T have referred, and the pliintidf biings “this action to recover the.-penalty —provided in such Act for such failure. The defendant demurred. te the amended complaint upon the ground that there is a non-joinder of parties defendant, it appearing that there are five Directors of the corporation, and also interposed a general demur* gorthat ths com;laint does not state of action. It was claimed by counsel i the defendant at the argument that Section 1 of said Act isin violation of Section 25 of Article 4 of the constitution of. this State, which, provides that ‘‘the Legislature shall not pass local or special lawsin any of the following enumerated cases, that 1s to say,” then follows inhibited cases 32 in number; and in the 33d and last subdivision of this section provides, in all other cases where ygeneral law can be made applicable. It ‘officer. The principal qnestion prements and rece'p's,. showing from . Sented was the constitutionality of trol that disci etion ? }tion is similar to that of our own. Does not this provision of ourconstitution leave a discretign with’ the Legislature to determine the “cases in which special laws-should: be passed? The constitution of the State of . Missouri contains this provision: “The GeneraljAssemblyshall pass no. Special law for aay ease-‘for which provision can be made ‘by general law, but shall pass general’ laws so far as it may be necessary for the cases enumerated in this-section,and for ail other cases where a general law can be made applicable. Afterthe adoption of the constitution contain‘ing this provision, the Legislature passed an act establishing probate courts in eight counties of the State, the county of Boone being ona of the number. Prior to the passage of this act the county courts of the State of Missouri had jurisdiction of probate matters. In the case of the State ex rel Henderson—vs, County Court. of Boonéo., 50, Mo, 317, also reported in llth American . reports 415, it appears that after the passage of the Act aprobate judge was duly appointed and qualified in the county of Boone, who demanded of the County Court of said county*the books, papers, etc., belonging».to the office of probate; but the county court refused to deliver the same, and continued to exercisd probate jurisdiction, denying that the probate judge ap~ pointed by the Govern + was a legal the Act of the Leg's ature estabishing a probate court for Boone county, the Act being a special, not a general Act. Justice Adams delivering the opinion of the ceurt deel: aring the Ast to He constitutional, said: ‘But who is to decide when a general or special law will answer the best purpose? It strikes me that this rule in reference to general or special laws js laid down as a guide for the” Législature, and the Legislature is to be the judge of the necessity of the particular case. The Legislature is quite as able to do this as the courts. The Legislature must, in the first instance exercise their discretion as to the ne-eessity for a special instead of a general Act. How can the courts con= Ifa discretion can be conceded atall, in my judgment the court have-no-righ$-to controlit.” It-wil be observed that the clause in the Missouri constituItinhibits the passage of certain special laws, and than provides that in all other eases general laws shall be pissed when'they can be made applicable, * The Supreme Court of Missouri also in the case of. The State —vs. Ebert, 49 Missotri, 186, sustained the Act of the Legislature creating the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, and in. the case of The State ex rel Dome vs. Wilcox decided the same question inregard to the statutes authorizing ° cities, villages to organize for sehool purposes, ’ These several acts were not expressly inhibited by the constitution, andthe question arose as to towns and is clear-to my mind that Legislatures cannot passa local or special law in any of the 32 inhibited cases named; in this Section, as, for instance, for! where a general law can be made the punishment of crimes*or missde-} applicable, : meanors, or regulating thé” practice in Coutts of justive, wt grauting livorees; or im any vilier of the 32. inhibited cases. It was claimed at the argument that ab special law adder Gu. cousti; tution éan be enacted’ whoa a gener: al law will cover ‘the case, A limit-f ing thia to be thie proper constrution } doubt in favor of the ctmstitution— of that portion of See. 24 of Art. 4 of! ality of the law.” the constitution which provides that the Legislature shall not pass any lo~ whether they were inhibited-by the gencral clause tnat the Cevisiature shall pass no special act in any case In-lidiana the Supreme Coutt. in the case of Stocking vs. ‘Phe State, 7 Tad. 328, bi speaking of the act of the Legislature in creating the Judicial Circuit, the Court said; ‘This does not seem to us to be sucha case, and even if we doubted we should be bound to throw the®benctit of our ‘he Tadiana conist ~Kthat an Act-of the Legis:ature: chang-law can law can be made-applicable in “any to be otherwise” makes it necessary ‘for-the-Courts to “decide the question. . ed unconstitutional by the Supreme a rose d be ‘made app.ivable. "Jn the Staté vs. Hitchcock, Ist ‘Kanses 178, it was held by the Supremé Court that their éonstitutional provision that‘ ‘in all cases where a general Jaw can be made applica— ble no-special no special Jaws shall be enacted,” left a discretion -with the Legislature to determine the casLes in which special laws shall be passed, and the discretion could not be interfered with by the Courts. And the Supreme Court. of Missouri in the case of The. State vs. County Court of-Boone County, said: ‘This doctrine seemed to be supported by In the case of Hess vs. Pegg, 7-. Nevada 28, the Supreme Court—beld reason and the weight of authority.” . general 4 Aet could not in this case have been made applicable, and that yy Tea that” slavery” e#ised_the—war,go == es inhibited cases’ named in Sec, 25, Art, 4, of the constitution. The questions presented are: Is the law a special one? Ifit is, is the case such that a general Act including all civil corporationscould have been made applicable? And if it is a special. Act, was it. within the ‘discretion of the Legislature to. determine that a general law could not have been ‘made applicable ? Thus far I have considered the questions raised, upon the assumption, that the Act is special, not general, and’have concluded if the law was special it. was within the discretion of the Legislature f declare that a . the-jitlyment:of-the— Legislature i cenclusive and cariot be erm with be the poynrts +for-act o'elock Monday morning, having been out 41 hours. four for murder fn the first degree, four for manslaughter and four for aequittal. Sunday evening they asked for instructions,» 2 after whieh: they stpod’ten for conviction and two ittal, Bee The N. Y. Times, reviews the contents of Jefferson Davis’. forthcom— ing history of the ‘‘Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.” ‘I . shall put into the harids of the chjldrén.of our dead,” Mr. Davis is re— ported as saying when he first enter-— ‘ed upon his work, ‘‘a ‘justification of the cause for whith their fathers died.”.Mr. Davis combats — the is contending that the paramount ques= tion was the -equality of the two sections.in_ the. Territories. This . 4 ing-the-county “seat-ofWashoe coun ty ear ome City fo Reno was not in conflict with the clause inthe constitution of that. State ‘thatinall cases enumerated, anda all ‘other cases where a general law be applicable, all. laws shall be of géngral and uniform operation throughout) the State.” All the anthofities that I have examined, in States having’ ¢lauses in their constitutions similar to our own that bear directly on this’ iquestion, hold that it is the province “of tlie Legislature to determine when a general law can be made applicable, and that it is not competent for _the courts to inquire whether a general be made applicable to the subject matter ofa special or local law enacted by the Legislature. Primarily, the Legislature must decide whetherer not ina given case a general law can be ‘made applicable. ‘The question when a general ysiven case is one for the Legislature, andgnot for the courts, has been clearly established in, other States and should be the rule in this State, unless the declarations in our constitution “that its. provisions shall be mandatory and prohibitory unless by express words they are declared determine this question. Ross, Justice, in delivering the opinion in the Supreme Court in the case of Earl vs, The Board of Education of the City and Obdunty of San Francisco, intimated that this declaration in our constitution may make it the duty of the Court in a given case to determine whether the Act in question contravened the provision ef tke constitution prohibiting the passage of a. special act when-a general Act could be made applicable, but the Court said they did not ‘This question not having been decided by the Supreme Court of this State, I think Tam warranted in holding, as has been held by the Courts of last resort in other States, that it is within the discretion of the Legislature to determine in any given case when a general law can ke msde appli‘able; and if I had any reasonable doubt about the correctness of the rule adopted in other States, having eonstitutions similar to our “pwn, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the Act im question. ‘he Act known as the Bakers’ Act was, in ex parte Westerfield, declarCourt of this State ; but it was because it was in direct: conflict with sub-division 2 of Sec. 25, Art. 4, of the constitution of this_State. The Legislature shall not pass local or special laws for the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors, In the case of Earl vs. The Board of Education of the City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court declared the Act of the: Legislature establishing salaries to be paid to teachers of public schools in cities and counties containing ‘more ‘than 100,000 inhabitants unconstitutional ‘for the reason that the Aet was inhibited by sub-division 27 of See, 25, Art.4 of the constitution. Local or special laws shall not be passed for the management of schools, The Supreme Court in the case of Duon vs. Desmond declared the MeClire’ charter uneonstitutional, as the Act did not fulfill the requirements of Sec. 6, Art. 11 of the, -conatitution. It will be observed that these several Actswere inhibited by the lets ter of the constitution. It is clear stitution, like our own, at the time. this decision was made inhibited cer-} cal or @pevial Jaw in’any case where a general law ‘can be maide applica‘ bie, Wore the anentiqn: griscd: case tain lucul_and spécial acts of the hibited cases; Legislature, and-then provided tha all laws should be general sybeneer. t that the Legislature cannot pass a local or special law i in any of the inIt is not claimed that the law in classification is anthorized by the: . duttes of the judiciary in passing on with-by-the-eourts. It seeins tome, however, that the: Act should be held to be general, and if it is general there -eannot be. any qtestion as to its constitutionality. It has been held. _that.a°special. law ‘‘is such as at cotrimon: law the thecourts would not notice unless it was 8pecially pleaded and proved: like any-other fact.” As to what-shall constitute a class, Tam/aware is a qu stion that volves‘n great -dealof difficulty, _Itseems'to me, however, that Ht may with as'much plausibility be elaim in= onstitete a class as that all corportions having Directors shail constitute aclass, In the case of Hymes that a law.which reiated to a partic— ular’ class of cases; and to them alone, was not a special law. ¥n the case of Wheeler vs. Phila‘ delphia, 77 Pa. 338, the Court said’ the true question is not whether terms of the constitution, but whether it is expressly prohibited. Af there existed in my mind a rea= sonable doubt as to the constitutionality of the section in question, it would be my duty to hold that it is constitutional. It has been held in a’ number of cases that courts are authorized to declare a legislative Act unconstitutional and void only when it violates the constivution clearly, palpably, plainly, and in such a manner as to leave no reasonable doubt; and our Supreme Court in a recent case, the case ‘of University of California vs, Bernard, said: The rule defining the the constitutionality of an Act of the Legislature is well settled in this State, that such an Act should not) be-~declared~ unconstitutional void unless there is a-clear repu;« nance between the Act and ‘the cou— repugnant to the~ Constitution, its . : constitutionality should. be affirmed, In my opinion, courts should not in any case interfere with the will of the people as expressed through the . Legislature, unless it clearly appears that the law in question is repugnant to the constitution. ‘The next objection is that there is anon-joinder of parties defendant, To this it is sufficient to say that the act provides that in case of the failure . of the Directors to have the reports and accounts current made and posted, as in the first section of the act provided, they shall be liable, either severally or jointly, to am action by any stockholder, The demurrer is overruled, Here and There, ‘Ten j jurers have been obtained i in the Kalloch murder case, Hon. Fernando Wood, member of Congress from New York, died at Hot Springs, Arkansas, at 10 o'vlock Sunday night. John I. Davenport says he has proof of 10,000 fraudulent naturalization certificates having been iseued in New York in 1868,"The Klamath is a river as is a river. It rose 82 feet above low water mark during the first heavy storm and was fully 100 feet above the low water aiark at other points where the river passes through deep canyons, The race between Hanlan and Layeeck over the Thames chathpion-. ship course, for the championship of England, the Sportsman Challenge Cup, and £1,000, came off Monday afternoon, and was won easily by Hanlan by abott four'lengths, The jury in the trial of Gray at Santa Barbara for the murder of ‘out,” said Mrs. Jones: ‘said Mrs. Smith, once to find you out.” that allmining corporations shall vs, Adelott, Ind. 431, it was held} ~ “and . stitution; and where there is a reayond Pine Grovg Cemetery. ‘sonable doubt whether the Act is equality was destroyed by ‘‘Fedéral‘usurpation,’ —-The adoption—of the Missouri compromise was the beginning of the usurpations, he thinks. -A considerable part of the work is devoted to a laborious defense of the “Rights of Secession." “T cacLep twice aud found you “Very good,” “Thad to call ste NEVADA THEATRE. IGHT ONLY, VARIETY SOMBINATI —a-— ws The Company consists of Miss Flora Walsh, the Child Actress, Miss Alice Douglass, Motto Singer, Sadie Irwin,.in her jigs, songs, dances, f —AND : Misa Mattie Stuart, the Handsome Burlesque and Statue Artist. Thos, Christy, Ei Ethiopian Cometimes and wooden shoe specialities, Harry Elmore, Negro Comedian and Billv Smith, the king laugh-maker and Silver Tenor Voice, will make the entertainment attractive. ’ A Full and First C Class orchestra Prices of admission as usual, FOR SALE CHEAP. DWELLIN GIN GoodRepair, on the Red Dog Road, beINQUIRE WITHM 39 DAYS AT f12-Im CITIZEN BANK. FESTIVAL & BALL WILL BE GIVEN AT Cummings’ Hall, North Bloomfield, ON THE NIGHT OF Tuesday, February 22, 1881, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THAT TOWN. py tC) Speers rere B2 56. Wood & Lumber Co. FOR SALE All kinds of Comm6n and Clear x SEX. Orders left at the office of South Yule Water Co., or at the Yard, on the Grass Viilley road will be promptly itttended to. SCHMIDT BROTHERS, COMMERCIAL STREET, . Nextdoor to Nafiziger’s Meat Market NEVADA CITY. ealer in _ PROVISIONS, Case Goods, Flour and Feed‘ Cigars, Tobacoo, Ete. The first-ballot stuod . Mustard, per bottle,” Ie, Pepp per boitle, We. dian, Henri Stuart, in his‘dance-pas-. ‘—<« ‘Nevada and Grass Valley . . kK™ CONSTANTLY ON . HAND. CASH PRICE isp —9OF THE “BEEHIVE GROCERY STOR TRANSCRIPT BLOCK, Co@mer: cial Str eet, Assorted —— = Us, Soda Crackers : Mackerel, No}, per kit 7 Bi! Mackerel, rt 155— & Tb, cans, dy sran, per toon Pi W fieat; = per 10 Ibe, gM), S E, B.Ten, ~~. “per bb., oe Japan Tea, ——per }»., : : Crushed Sugar, 7 ponnds $1 0) Brown Sugar, 3 pounds -$) gy Pearl Barley, ~~ 3 Tbs, 95 ots Split Peas, . 13 1bs., a 4s Best Island Rite, 10 Ibs. 109 Harkness Wax Candles, box, -399 Oysters, 12 cans “] 69 Cora, 5 cans” J 99 Jelly, 2-pound cans, . : 34, Sardines, small cans, 6 cans} 60 Sardines, large-cans. 4 ¢ ans” 10) Lemon Peer and Citron, 3 thy = ite Tonacco, per Ib, 70 Oil Can fall of Coffee, 3-hs,, 69 Milk Can full of € ‘otfe e, 3 Ibe., 60 Dinner Can full of Co; ee. § 5 Ibe. , 100 Beans, 334 lbs. for LO round Coffee, per pac Kage, cts. Corn Starch, 2 2 packazes, 25 ets, Starch, 2 packages, 25 ets} Prize Medal Kérosene via sper gal ape do do do 5 yal-van, 295 Best Cal. Candles, 39 1 Frye’s English Cocoa, packet “aS W ashing Powder, 3 ackages . Lie All godds-subject-to correction: sar Everythisg Fresh and warrant ed to be the Best: ATED “Thistledew Whisky, For family and medicinal purposes. AGENT FOR THE CELER ALSO-AGENT FOR THE Eclipse, Sparkling Muscatel, and Grand Prize CHEAMPAGINE, Richard Roberts Must be Reduced ! Must be Reduced! EING OVERSTOCKED WITH THE F inest Stock of (CIGARS Ever brought to Nevada City, I am determined to sell the same at Wholesale or Retail. during thé next — ae tS = This is-not Buncombe, buts Plain Busisiess Proposition! MY ASSORTMENT OF . TOBACCOS, CONFECTIONERY, CUTLERY, Is kmong the hest, ja the market, and! s™ also #elling them at LOWER PRICES Réad a few of my Prices: . Cigttrs that cost $125 @ thousand in San Francisco, I sellat 12 1-2 cents apiece. Cigars that cost $70 a thousand in Ss Francisco, I sell at 8 1-3 cents apiece. Regular Bit Cigars at 6 1-4 cents apiece. Very good Cigars for four and five cents each. 4@ Call at my old Stand on Pine Street and eXumine my Gods ® eestion isi ip violation of any of the jeditor Glancey were disobarged at 10 . examine extend a cordial invitation ta ee See rally cok sod examine ny Geods eos. we z. “JOHN JACK. FRUIT, Etc. Than haste “he in Nevada City a Wm. Eagtan. United The . i * sald Mc sale for Parr a purchas The Barbar: a Visit. same ‘tr “Frant itol Fur to-day . a large niture y stock. . Anot! brtion passed 1 onits Ww vi ious sh «fore nigh Bad vas, ‘aged ab at Lake ‘had just Eloomfi deaths out of +t “edtly da nence j . the prin most es enterpri Eureka was hea sive pro, successf be? af J most de funeral Valley { Copper . The r Copper claim -is the. eth Sisb, 188 _ $25,000: ied Septe ditures of Janua the Com against 1 ued at'$ per ahd . tons 6f o eight mo pounds: € The cave ly to get & cost_of a fu which to * church y largely a rainstort sJ. 0, G. tember, pall bear A. Bulfi Farrer, . Frank Y The fune Revw J. . AG A P'ac inst. say Philip W ing in th car becar him, erw Grass Va of age. tirely acc The rem Valley fo tT The Cl before Ji and his b golians n for im th thought \will be a: Good f by the ds at the co streets,

The Daily Transéripit. NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA. Wednesday, February 16, 1881. aren POAT a8 ; Eolgeeaay o MINING INCONPORATIONS. . Jadge CaldwWell’s Decision. Berlaring Constitutional the Law. ae lating to Mining Companies’ Monthly Statements. Following is the,full text of Supe“rior Judge Caldwell’s decision inthe case of Wm. Smith vs. Wm, George, which suit was brought by plaintiff as-stoskholder in the Alpha Mining . “Company of Grass Valley against the . “defendant as officers of the same to “yecover the penalties under the law, Sec. 1 of the Act of April 23d, 1880, requiring the Directors of mining corporatious to perform ° ‘certain acts have been made applicable to all civil corporations throughout the State ? Private corporations in this State may be formed for any purpose for which individuals“inay lawfully « associate themselves. Private corporations may be formed for the improvement of the breed of domestic animals, It seems to me that a general law reqgiring the Direetors of of corporations to make monthly statenientsof the business of the corporation cond hardly be made applicable to such least there would not seem to be any . } good reason for thy making-of ~ the: law applicable to such a —— But the principal question= -here wander the Jaws of this State, _ facta suffioient to constitute a cause amoanting to $1,000, for his failure to post in a conspiouous place a monthly statement, onthe first day of each month, ef the company’s accounts: ‘It is alleged in:the amended complaint that at the times therein mentioned the Alphy Miuving Co, was a corporation created hy and existing and forined-thereunder for’ the parpose of mining, and’ that its principal place of business was in Grass Val_ ley, in this county, at which place it “has a® office, and that at said times the defendant and four others (naming them) were the directors of said ene ‘poration, and that the plaintiff was af said time and now isa stocklioider of said corporation, and holder of 2,000 shares of the capital stock thereof. z Section one of the Act of the Leg—. 1 ‘lature of this State entitled ‘“‘An Act amendatory of the Act entitled ‘An Act for the better protection of the stockholders in corporations formed under the laws of the-State-of —Cahifornia.foc-the. purpose of carrying on aud conducting the business of mining’, approved March 80th, 1874,.approved April 23, 1880, ” provides among other things as follows: ‘‘1t shall be the duty of Directors on the first Mouday of each-.and every moath, to'cause to be madéan item. _ ized account or balance sheet for the previous month, embracing full and complete statement-of-all disburse_ whom and to what use and*to: whom such disbursements or payments were made, or for what object or purpose the same were mades.also?a'l indebtedness or liablities < ine incurred or existing at the time, and for what the same was incurred, and the balance of money, ifany, onhand, Such account or balance sheet shali_ .be Gerified under eath by “the President and Secretary and posted in some oti haat place in the office of the company. ‘The complaint sufficiently alleges a failure on/. the part of the Directors of the corporation to comply with the requirements of that portion of gaid Section Ona to which T have referred, and the pliintidf biings “this action to recover the.-penalty —provided in such Act for such failure. The defendant demurred. te the amended complaint upon the ground that there is a non-joinder of parties defendant, it appearing that there are five Directors of the corporation, and also interposed a general demur* gorthat ths com;laint does not state of action. It was claimed by counsel i the defendant at the argument that Section 1 of said Act isin violation of Section 25 of Article 4 of the constitution of. this State, which, provides that ‘‘the Legislature shall not pass local or special lawsin any of the following enumerated cases, that 1s to say,” then follows inhibited cases 32 in number; and in the 33d and last subdivision of this section provides, in all other cases where ygeneral law can be made applicable. It ‘officer. The principal qnestion prements and rece'p's,. showing from . Sented was the constitutionality of trol that disci etion ? }tion is similar to that of our own. Does not this provision of ourconstitution leave a discretign with’ the Legislature to determine the “cases in which special laws-should: be passed? The constitution of the State of . Missouri contains this provision: “The GeneraljAssemblyshall pass no. Special law for aay ease-‘for which provision can be made ‘by general law, but shall pass general’ laws so far as it may be necessary for the cases enumerated in this-section,and for ail other cases where a general law can be made applicable. Afterthe adoption of the constitution contain‘ing this provision, the Legislature passed an act establishing probate courts in eight counties of the State, the county of Boone being ona of the number. Prior to the passage of this act the county courts of the State of Missouri had jurisdiction of probate matters. In the case of the State ex rel Henderson—vs, County Court. of Boonéo., 50, Mo, 317, also reported in llth American . reports 415, it appears that after the passage of the Act aprobate judge was duly appointed and qualified in the county of Boone, who demanded of the County Court of said county*the books, papers, etc., belonging».to the office of probate; but the county court refused to deliver the same, and continued to exercisd probate jurisdiction, denying that the probate judge ap~ pointed by the Govern + was a legal the Act of the Leg's ature estabishing a probate court for Boone county, the Act being a special, not a general Act. Justice Adams delivering the opinion of the ceurt deel: aring the Ast to He constitutional, said: ‘But who is to decide when a general or special law will answer the best purpose? It strikes me that this rule in reference to general or special laws js laid down as a guide for the” Législature, and the Legislature is to be the judge of the necessity of the particular case. The Legislature is quite as able to do this as the courts. The Legislature must, in the first instance exercise their discretion as to the ne-eessity for a special instead of a general Act. How can the courts con= Ifa discretion can be conceded atall, in my judgment the court have-no-righ$-to controlit.” It-wil be observed that the clause in the Missouri constituItinhibits the passage of certain special laws, and than provides that in all other eases general laws shall be pissed when'they can be made applicable, * The Supreme Court of Missouri also in the case of. The State —vs. Ebert, 49 Missotri, 186, sustained the Act of the Legislature creating the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, and in. the case of The State ex rel Dome vs. Wilcox decided the same question inregard to the statutes authorizing ° cities, villages to organize for sehool purposes, ’ These several acts were not expressly inhibited by the constitution, andthe question arose as to towns and is clear-to my mind that Legislatures cannot passa local or special law in any of the 32 inhibited cases named; in this Section, as, for instance, for! where a general law can be made the punishment of crimes*or missde-} applicable, : meanors, or regulating thé” practice in Coutts of justive, wt grauting livorees; or im any vilier of the 32. inhibited cases. It was claimed at the argument that ab special law adder Gu. cousti; tution éan be enacted’ whoa a gener: al law will cover ‘the case, A limit-f ing thia to be thie proper constrution } doubt in favor of the ctmstitution— of that portion of See. 24 of Art. 4 of! ality of the law.” the constitution which provides that the Legislature shall not pass any lo~ whether they were inhibited-by the gencral clause tnat the Cevisiature shall pass no special act in any case In-lidiana the Supreme Coutt. in the case of Stocking vs. ‘Phe State, 7 Tad. 328, bi speaking of the act of the Legislature in creating the Judicial Circuit, the Court said; ‘This does not seem to us to be sucha case, and even if we doubted we should be bound to throw the®benctit of our ‘he Tadiana conist ~Kthat an Act-of the Legis:ature: chang-law can law can be made-applicable in “any to be otherwise” makes it necessary ‘for-the-Courts to “decide the question. . ed unconstitutional by the Supreme a rose d be ‘made app.ivable. "Jn the Staté vs. Hitchcock, Ist ‘Kanses 178, it was held by the Supremé Court that their éonstitutional provision that‘ ‘in all cases where a general Jaw can be made applica— ble no-special no special Jaws shall be enacted,” left a discretion -with the Legislature to determine the casLes in which special laws shall be passed, and the discretion could not be interfered with by the Courts. And the Supreme Court. of Missouri in the case of The. State vs. County Court of-Boone County, said: ‘This doctrine seemed to be supported by In the case of Hess vs. Pegg, 7-. Nevada 28, the Supreme Court—beld reason and the weight of authority.” . general 4 Aet could not in this case have been made applicable, and that yy Tea that” slavery” e#ised_the—war,go == es inhibited cases’ named in Sec, 25, Art, 4, of the constitution. The questions presented are: Is the law a special one? Ifit is, is the case such that a general Act including all civil corporationscould have been made applicable? And if it is a special. Act, was it. within the ‘discretion of the Legislature to. determine that a general law could not have been ‘made applicable ? Thus far I have considered the questions raised, upon the assumption, that the Act is special, not general, and’have concluded if the law was special it. was within the discretion of the Legislature f declare that a . the-jitlyment:of-the— Legislature i cenclusive and cariot be erm with be the poynrts +for-act o'elock Monday morning, having been out 41 hours. four for murder fn the first degree, four for manslaughter and four for aequittal. Sunday evening they asked for instructions,» 2 after whieh: they stpod’ten for conviction and two ittal, Bee The N. Y. Times, reviews the contents of Jefferson Davis’. forthcom— ing history of the ‘‘Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.” ‘I . shall put into the harids of the chjldrén.of our dead,” Mr. Davis is re— ported as saying when he first enter-— ‘ed upon his work, ‘‘a ‘justification of the cause for whith their fathers died.”.Mr. Davis combats — the is contending that the paramount ques= tion was the -equality of the two sections.in_ the. Territories.. This . 4 ing-the-county “seat-ofWashoe coun ty ear ome City fo Reno was not in conflict with the clause inthe constitution of that. State ‘thatinall cases enumerated, anda all ‘other cases where a general law be applicable, all. laws shall be of géngral and uniform operation throughout) the State.” All the anthofities that I have examined, in States having’ ¢lauses in their constitutions similar to our own that bear directly on this’ iquestion, hold that it is the province “of tlie Legislature to determine when a general law can be made applicable, and that it is not competent for _the courts to inquire whether a general be made applicable to the subject matter ofa special or local law enacted by the Legislature. Primarily, the Legislature must decide whetherer not ina given case a general law can be ‘made applicable. ‘The question when a general ysiven case is one for the Legislature, andgnot for the courts, has been clearly established in, other States and should be the rule in this State, unless the declarations in our constitution “that its. provisions shall be mandatory and prohibitory unless by express words they are declared determine this question. Ross, Justice, in delivering the opinion in the Supreme Court in the case of Earl vs, The Board of Education of the City and Obdunty of San Francisco, intimated that this declaration in our constitution may make it the duty of the Court in a given case to determine whether the Act in question contravened the provision ef tke constitution prohibiting the passage of a. special act when-a general Act could be made applicable, but the Court said they did not ‘This question not having been decided by the Supreme Court of this State, I think Tam warranted in holding, as has been held by the Courts of last resort in other States, that it is within the discretion of the Legislature to determine in any given case when a general law can ke msde appli‘able; and if I had any reasonable doubt about the correctness of the rule adopted in other States, having eonstitutions similar to our “pwn, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the Act im question. ‘he Act known as the Bakers’ Act was, in ex parte Westerfield, declarCourt of this State ; but it was because it was in direct: conflict with sub-division 2 of Sec. 25, Art. 4, of the constitution of this_State. The Legislature shall not pass local or special laws for the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors, In the case of Earl vs. The Board of Education of the City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court declared the Act of the: Legislature establishing salaries to be paid to teachers of public schools in cities and counties containing ‘more ‘than 100,000 inhabitants unconstitutional ‘for the reason that the Aet was inhibited by sub-division 27 of See, 25, Art.4 of the constitution. Local or special laws shall not be passed for the management of schools, The Supreme Court in the case of Duon vs. Desmond declared the MeClire’ charter uneonstitutional, as the Act did not fulfill the requirements of Sec. 6, Art. 11 of the, -conatitution. It will be observed that these several Actswere inhibited by the lets ter of the constitution. It is clear stitution, like our own, at the time. this decision was made inhibited cer-} cal or @pevial Jaw in’any case where a general law ‘can be maide applica‘ bie, Wore the anentiqn: griscd: case tain lucul_and spécial acts of the hibited cases; Legislature, and-then provided tha all laws should be general sybeneer. t that the Legislature cannot pass a local or special law i in any of the inIt is not claimed that the law in classification is anthorized by the: . duttes of the judiciary in passing on with-by-the-eourts. It seeins tome, however, that the: Act should be held to be general, and if it is general there -eannot be. any qtestion as to its constitutionality. It has been held. _that.a°special. law ‘‘is such as at cotrimon: law the thecourts would not notice unless it was 8pecially pleaded and proved: like any-other fact.” As to what-shall constitute a class, Tam/aware is a qu stion that

volves‘n great -dealof difficulty, _Itseems'to me, however, that Ht may with as'much plausibility be elaim in= onstitete a class as that all corportions having Directors shail constitute aclass, In the case of Hymes that a law.which reiated to a partic— ular’ class of cases; and to them alone, was not a special law. ¥n the case of Wheeler vs. Phila‘ delphia, 77 Pa. 338, the Court said’ the true question is not whether terms of the constitution, but whether it is expressly prohibited. Af there existed in my mind a rea= sonable doubt as to the constitutionality of the section in question, it would be my duty to hold that it is constitutional. It has been held in a’ number of cases that courts are authorized to declare a legislative Act unconstitutional and void only when it violates the constivution clearly, palpably, plainly, and in such a manner as to leave no reasonable doubt; and our Supreme Court in a recent case, the case ‘of University of California vs, Bernard, said: The rule defining the the constitutionality of an Act of the Legislature is well settled in this State, that such an Act should not) be-~declared~ unconstitutional void unless there is a-clear repu;« nance between the Act and ‘the cou— repugnant to the~ Constitution, its . : constitutionality should. be affirmed, In my opinion, courts should not in any case interfere with the will of the people as expressed through the . Legislature, unless it clearly appears that the law in question is repugnant to the constitution. ‘The next objection is that there is anon-joinder of parties defendant, To this it is sufficient to say that the act provides that in case of the failure . of the Directors to have the reports and accounts current made and posted, as in the first section of the act provided, they shall be liable, either severally or jointly, to am action by any stockholder, The demurrer is overruled, Here and There, ‘Ten j jurers have been obtained i in the Kalloch murder case, Hon. Fernando Wood, member of Congress from New York, died at Hot Springs, Arkansas, at 10 o'vlock Sunday night. John I. Davenport says he has proof of 10,000 fraudulent naturalization certificates having been iseued in New York in 1868,"The Klamath is a river as is a river. It rose 82 feet above low water mark during the first heavy storm and was fully 100 feet above the low water aiark at other points where the river passes through deep canyons, The race between Hanlan and Layeeck over the Thames chathpion-. ship course, for the championship of England, the Sportsman Challenge Cup, and £1,000, came off Monday afternoon, and was won easily by Hanlan by abott four'lengths, The jury in the trial of Gray at Santa Barbara for the murder of ‘out,” said Mrs. Jones: ‘said Mrs. Smith, once to find you out.” that allmining corporations shall vs, Adelott, Ind. 431, it was held} ~ “and . stitution; and where there is a reayond Pine Grovg Cemetery. ‘sonable doubt whether the Act is equality was destroyed by ‘‘Fedéral‘usurpation,’ —-The adoption—of the Missouri compromise was the beginning of the usurpations, he thinks. -A considerable part of the work is devoted to a laborious defense of the “Rights of Secession." “T cacLep twice aud found you “Very good,” “Thad to call ste NEVADA THEATRE. IGHT ONLY, VARIETY SOMBINATI —a-— ws The Company consists of Miss Flora Walsh, the Child Actress, Miss Alice Douglass, Motto Singer, Sadie Irwin,.in her jigs, songs, dances, f —AND : Misa Mattie Stuart, the Handsome Burlesque and Statue Artist. Thos, Christy, Ei Ethiopian Cometimes and wooden shoe specialities, Harry Elmore, Negro Comedian and Billv Smith, the king laugh-maker and Silver Tenor Voice, will make the entertainment attractive. ’ A Full and First C Class orchestra Prices of admission as usual, FOR SALE CHEAP. DWELLIN GIN GoodRepair, on the Red Dog Road, beINQUIRE WITHM 39 DAYS AT f12-Im CITIZEN BANK. FESTIVAL & BALL WILL BE GIVEN AT Cummings’ Hall, North Bloomfield, ON THE NIGHT OF Tuesday, February 22, 1881, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THAT TOWN. py tC) Speers rere B2 56. Wood & Lumber Co. FOR SALE All kinds of Comm6n and Clear x SEX. Orders left at the office of South Yule Water Co., or at the Yard, on the Grass Viilley road will be promptly itttended to. SCHMIDT BROTHERS, COMMERCIAL STREET, . Nextdoor to Nafiziger’s Meat Market NEVADA CITY. ealer in _ PROVISIONS, Case Goods, Flour and Feed‘ Cigars, Tobacoo, Ete. The first-ballot stuod . Mustard, per bottle,” Ie, Pepp per boitle, We. dian, Henri Stuart, in his‘dance-pas-. ‘—<« ‘Nevada and Grass Valley . . kK™ CONSTANTLY ON . HAND. CASH PRICE isp —9OF THE “BEEHIVE GROCERY STOR TRANSCRIPT BLOCK, Co@mer: cial Str eet, Assorted —— = Us, Soda Crackers : Mackerel, No}, per kit 7 Bi! Mackerel, rt 155— & Tb, cans, dy sran, per toon Pi W fieat; = per 10 Ibe, gM), S E, B.Ten, ~~. “per bb., oe Japan Tea, ——per }»., : : Crushed Sugar, 7 ponnds $1 0) Brown Sugar, 3 pounds -$) gy Pearl Barley, ~~ 3 Tbs, 95 ots Split Peas, . 13 1bs., a 4s Best Island Rite, 10 Ibs. 109 Harkness Wax Candles, box, -399 Oysters, 12 cans “] 69 Cora, 5 cans” J 99 Jelly, 2-pound cans, . : 34, Sardines, small cans, 6 cans} 60 Sardines, large-cans. 4 ¢ ans” 10) Lemon Peer and Citron, 3 thy = ite Tonacco, per Ib, 70 Oil Can fall of Coffee, 3-hs,, 69 Milk Can full of € ‘otfe e, 3 Ibe., 60 Dinner Can full of Co; ee. § 5 Ibe. , 100 Beans, 334 lbs. for LO round Coffee, per pac Kage, cts. Corn Starch, 2 2 packazes, 25 ets, Starch, 2 packages, 25 ets} Prize Medal Kérosene via sper gal ape do do do 5 yal-van, 295 Best Cal. Candles, 39 1 Frye’s English Cocoa, packet “aS W ashing Powder, 3 ackages . Lie All godds-subject-to correction: sar Everythisg Fresh and warrant ed to be the Best: ATED “Thistledew Whisky, For family and medicinal purposes. AGENT FOR THE CELER ALSO-AGENT FOR THE Eclipse, Sparkling Muscatel, and Grand Prize CHEAMPAGINE, Richard Roberts Must be Reduced ! Must be Reduced! EING OVERSTOCKED WITH THE F inest Stock of (CIGARS Ever brought to Nevada City, I am determined to sell the same at Wholesale or Retail. during thé next — ae tS = This is-not Buncombe, buts Plain Busisiess Proposition! MY ASSORTMENT OF . TOBACCOS, CONFECTIONERY, CUTLERY, Is kmong the hest, ja the market, and! s™ also #elling them at LOWER PRICES Réad a few of my Prices: . Cigttrs that cost $125 @ thousand in San Francisco, I sellat 12 1-2 cents apiece. Cigars that cost $70 a thousand in Ss Francisco, I sell at 8 1-3 cents apiece. Regular Bit Cigars at 6 1-4 cents apiece. Very good Cigars for four and five cents each. 4@ Call at my old Stand on Pine Street and eXumine my Gods ® eestion isi ip violation of any of the jeditor Glancey were disobarged at 10 . examine extend a cordial invitation ta ee See rally cok sod examine ny Geods eos. we z. “JOHN JACK. FRUIT, Etc. Than haste “he in Nevada City a Wm. Eagtan. United The . i * sald Mc sale for Parr a purchas The Barbar: a Visit. same ‘tr “Frant itol Fur to-day . a large niture y stock. . Anot! brtion passed 1 onits Ww vi ious sh «fore nigh Bad vas, ‘aged ab at Lake ‘had just Eloomfi deaths out of +t “edtly da nence j . the prin most es enterpri Eureka was hea sive pro, successf be? af J most de funeral Valley { Copper . The r Copper claim -is the. eth Sisb, 188 _ $25,000: ied Septe ditures of Janua the Com against 1 ued at'$ per ahd . tons 6f o eight mo pounds: € The cave ly to get & cost_of a fu which to * church y largely a rainstort sJ. 0, G. tember, pall bear A. Bulfi Farrer, . Frank Y The fune Revw J. . AG A P'ac inst. say Philip W ing in th car becar him, erw Grass Va of age. tirely acc The rem Valley fo tT The Cl before Ji and his b golians n for im th thought \will be a: Good f by the ds at the co streets,