Copyright
California Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of State.

Amendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... online

. (page 1 of 36)
Online LibraryCalifornia Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of StateAmendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... → online text (page 1 of 36)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at http : //books . google . com/|



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



y

Amendments to Constitution



and



Proposed Statutes

with

I

Arguments Respecting the Same



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

General Election on

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1914

c



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

Digitized by



Google



lL/^3^B'ul'.l-3



EXTRA SESSIO




COURTS OP APPEAL.



Assembly Constitutional Amendment 32 adding section 4a to article VI of constituttoiu
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 ; pro-
vides 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 termina-
tion of such sessions.



Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 32 — A
resolution to propose to the people of the State
of California, an amendment to the constitu-
tion amending article VI thereof, by inserting
therein a new section to be known as section
4a, providing for the holding of extra sessions
of the district courts of appeal, and the selec-
tion, designation and appointment of members
of any court of appeal or judges of any supe-
rior court, to act pro tempore as Justices of
said district courts of appeal to hold such
extra sessions thereof.

The legislature of the State of California, at
this fortieth session, commencing on the 6th day
of January, 1913, two thirds of all of the mem-
bers elected to each of the houses of said legisla-
ture voting in favor thereof, hereby propose that
article VI of the Constitution of the State of Cal-
ifornia be amended by adding thereto a new sec-
tion, to be known as section 4o, which section
shall read as follows :

PROPOSED LAW.

Section 4a. The governor of the State of
California may, and at the request of the chief
justice of the supreme court of the State of Cali-
fornia shall direct that an extra session or extra
sessions of the district court of appeal of any
district be held, and upon the request of the pre-
siding justice of the district court of appeal of
any district, shall direct that an extra session of
such court be held. Each extra session of such
court of appeal of any district shall be held by
three judges who may be justices of the court of
appeal of other districts of the State of Califor-
nia, or judges of any superior court within the
state, one of whom shall be selected by the gov-
ernor of the State of California, another by the
chief justice of the supreme court of the State of
California, and the other by the presiding judge
of the court of appeals of the particular district
in which the extra session is, or extra sessions
are to be held. Said justices and judges so
selected shall be justices pro tempore of said
courts of appeal for the purpose of holding such
extra session or sessions of said court. More
than one extra session of the court of appeal of
any particular district may be held at one time;
provided, that eax^h section shall be held by three
justices pro tempore consisting of justices of the
district courts of appeal of other districts, or
judges of the superior court, selected as herein-
above set forth. During any extra session of the
district courts of appeal, the presiding justice of
the district court of appeal of such district may
sit during such extra session with the said jus-
tices pro tempore holding such extra session, or
he may designate one of the said justices pro
tempore so holding said session, to act during
such extra session as presiding justice thereof ;
provided, however, that whenever the presiding
justice of the district court of appeal of such dis-
trict shall so sit during such extra session with
said other justices pro tempore holding such ex-
tra session, the concurrence of the three justices
pro tempore holding such session, or of two of
said justices and such presiding justice of the
district court of appeal of such district, shall be
sufficient to pronounce a judgment of said dis-
trict courts of appeal of said district In any of
the appeals, actions, proceedings or matters heard
by, or submitted to such extra session of said
court or the Justices thereof. The presiding
Two



Justice of the court of appeal of the district In
which any such extra session is being held or to
be held shall have power to assign causes and
appeals pending in said court to such extra ses-
sion, for consideration and decision. Said extra
session of said district court of appeal and the
said justices pro tempore holding the same, shall
have jurisdiction to determine all causes, appeals,
proceedings and matters that shall be so assigned
to them for consideration and decision during
such extra session, with like force and effect as
though such causes, appeals, proceedings and
matters hsid been heard by, submitted to and de-
termined by the duly elected, qualified and acting
justices of said district court of appeal of the
district in which such extra session is, or extra
sessions are being held, or by such court. No
justices pro tempore of the court of appeal of any
district shall be qualified to participate upon the
hearing of any cause in which, or in any pro-
ceeding in which he has acted as Judge in any
other court. No justices pro tempore of any
court of appeal of any district shall receive any
compensation for acting as such, other than that
attached to the office which he holds at the time
of his selection as such justice pro tempore, but
shall be entitled to his actual expenses. When-
ever any justice pro tempore of the supreme
court Is for any reason disqualified or unable to
act In a cause pending before it, or any extra
session thereof, the governor or justice by whom
he has been selected shall forthwith select some
other justice of the district court of appeal or
Judge of the superior court to act in his place.
At any time after the causes and matters which
shall have been assigned to such extra session
of any district court of appeal or the justices pro
tempore thereof, shall have been finally deter-
mined, the supreme court of the State of Califor-
nia, by an order entered upon its minutes, may
terminate such extra session or extra sessions.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ASSEMBLY CON-
STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 32.

The proposed amendment does not in any re-
spect change or modify any of the existing con-
stitutional provisions, but merely supplements
those relating to the supreme court and district
courts of appeal by conferring upon them such
additional authority as will enable them, only,
however, when the exigencies of the situation
require, and then at practically no expense, to
speedily dispose of pending litigation, to the in-
calculable benefit of the litigant.

The great length of time intervening between
the commencement of an action and its final ter-
mination by the supreme court, without any
fault on its part, has caused frequent complaint
and brought about severe criticism of the judicial
system. In many cases this delay has worked
great hardship upon the parties, and ofttimes
results in a miscarriage of justice. This is par-
ticularly true of the litigant whose entire sub-
stance is involved in the litigation.

As the state becomes more populous litigation
Increases. While the creation of additional trial
judges permits this litigation to be rapidly dis-
posed of in the lower court, it increases the bur-
dens of the appellate courts without providing
any remedy for their relief.*



ioogle



If this constitutional amendment Is adopted a
method will be devised, practically without ex-
pense to the state, by which the increased num-
ber of appeals will be rapidly takfen care of and
finally concluded with little delay.

The supreme court has the right, which It fre-
quently exercises, to transfer appeals pending
before It, to the district courts of appeal. If
extra sessions of the district courts of appeal
are held, the supreme court can transfer to such
district courts of appeal much of the litigation
then pending before it, so that when one or two
extra sessions are held, no valid reason will exist
why all pending litigation in the supreme court,
not actually under submission at the time such
extra sessions are held can not be readily dis-
posed of so that at the termination of such extra
sessions a case will appear . for argrument upon
the next calendar called by it, after the filing of
the transcript on appeal. When this is accom"
plished, no further necessity will exist for the
holding of any extra session of the district courts
of appeal until either court gets behind in its
work.

The determination of litigation by an extra
session of the court of appeal does not deprive
the litigant of having such appeal finally passed
upon by the supreme court, because, as we all
know, the litigant is entitled to apply to the su-
preme court for a rehearing, which rehearing
will of course be granted in the event the deci-
sion of the court of appeal is incorrect.

James J. Rtan,
Assemblyman Twenty-third District

ARGUMENT AGAINST ASSEMBLY CONSTI-
TUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 32.

The reasons why Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 32 should not be adopted are
briefly enumerated as follows:

First — The principal objection to this amend-
ment is that it is not needed. Investigation of
the records of the courts of appeal, for the past
ten years, shows that the calendars are cleared
regrularly In remarkably short time, and that
there is absolutely no congestion In these courts.
Inquiry made of those justices of the courts of
appeal who are available to the writer indicated
that the justices themselves do not consider ex-
tra sessions at all necessary.

Second — ^The extra sessions provided for by
this amendment would necessarily have to be pre-



sided over by judges called from the superior
courts, which courts, at the present time In most
counties, are already congested and need the
attention of all their judges. Justices of courts
of appeal of one district would not be called to
preside in extra sessions in another district, be-
cause where congestion exists in one district
now, sufliclent cases are transferred to an un-
congested district to relieve the situation. If
there is sufficient regular business to justify any
considerable number of extra sessions, a new
district should be provided Instead.

Third — The method provided for calling these
extra sessions Is unsafe and ill-advised. Any
one of five ofiicials can compel the holding of an
extra session, while the supreme court, only, has
power to adjourn it

Fourth — It is questionable whether a judge of
the superior court could act as such, and at the
same time sit in extra session as justice of the
courts of appeal. It is practically certain he
could not sit in trial and also sit upon appeal in
the same case, particularly in cases where mo-
tions for new trial had been denied in the lower
court, and came up before the same judge for
hearing on appeal. Another question would arise
as to the power of the regularly elected justices
of a district court of appeal to grant or deny a
rehearing of a case decided in extra session, for
the amendment states that the decisions of extra
sessions shall have "like force and effect as
though such causes ♦ ♦ ♦ had been ♦ • • deter-
mined by the duly elected ♦ ♦ ♦ justices."

Fifch — This amendment would have the effect
of creating further congestion in the superior
cov.rts, and would not be of material relief to
the supreme court A readjustment of the
classes of cases that should properly come up
on appeal in the supreme court, or in the courts
of appeal, would relieve the congestion In the
supreme court without creating congestion in
the superior courts.

Sixth — ^The language of this particular amend-
ment is very confusing in parts, particularly its
reference to Justices pro tempore of the "Su-
preme Court," when the context clearly indicates
that it means "Court of Appeal," and also where
the word "section" Is used in one place, but evi-
dently intended the word "session."

For the above mentioned reasons, the writer
believes this amendment should be defeated.
H. Stanley Benedict,
Assemblyman Sixty-third District



MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

Senate Constitutional Amendnidnt 12 amending section 4} of article VI of constitution.
. Omits from present section word "criminal," thereby providing that no jud??ment 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.

as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as
to any matter of procedure, unless, after an ex-
amination of the entire cause, including the evi-
dence, the court shall be of the opinion that the
error complained of has resulted in a miscar-
riage of justice.

Section 4}, article VI, proposed to be amend-
ed, now reads as follows :

EXISTING LAW.

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



Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 12, a reso-
lution to propose to the people of the State of
California an amendment to the constitution of
said state, by amending section four and one
half of article six thereof, relating to appeals.

The legislature of the State of California, at Its
regular session commencing on the sixth day of
January, in the year one thousand nine hundred
thirteen, two thirds of all the members elected
to each of the two houses of said legislature vot-
ing in favor thereof, herebv r»ror»oses an amend-
ment to the Constitution of the State of Califor-
nia, by amending section four and one half of
article six thereof, to read as follows :

PROPOSED LAW.

Section 4}. No Judgment shall be set aside, or
new trial granted. In any case, on the grround of
misdirection of the jury, or of the improper ad-
misalbn or rejection of evidence, or for any error



lOOgt^



ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OP SENATE CON-
STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 12.

The decisions of the supreme court of Cali-
fornia abound with instances where verdicts of
juries and judgments of the lower courts have
been reversed for failure to comply with trivial
and technical requirements that in no way affect
the merits of the action. As a result of such
reversals, which usually occur from three to five
years after the commencement of the action, the
courts are compelled to take up a further three
or five or more years of their time in going over
the same controversy, often with a practical mis-
carriage and denial of justice to one of the
parties to the action and always to the inconve-
nience of other litigants. The purpose of Senate
Constitutional Amendment No. 12 is to help over-
come these unnecessary delays, put an end to
such interminable litigation, if possible, and to
change the trial of cases from a test of the
craftiness, ability and skill of opposing attorneys
into an honest endeavor to mete out justice as
between the parties. This rule has heretofore
been adopted in criminal cases and has been
satisfactory. As property is less valuable than
life or liberty it should be equally satisfactory
in civil cases.. William Kbhob^

State Senator First District.



Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 12 is de-
signed to prevent the reversal of civil cases by
courts of appeal on purely technical grounds.

In 1911 the writer had the privilege of intro-
ducing in the legislature an amendment to the
constitution, which provided that in all criminal
cases, no judgment should be reversed, on ap-
peal, except when such judgment would result in
a substantial miscarriage of justice. This amend-
ment was unanimously adopted by both houses
of the legislature, was overwhelmingly ratified
by the people, and is now known as section 4i of
article VI of the state constitution. The present
proposed amendment seeks to extend the same
provision to civil cases. It, likewise, was adopted
by the unanimous vote of both the senate and
assembly.

The purpose of our judicial system is to try
cases on their merits. Often this purpose, how-
ever, is thwarted by having decisions of the
lower courts reversed because certain rules of
procedure were broken. In scores of cases ap-
pellate judges have reluctantly set aside meri-
torious decisions on no other ground than that
during a long and heated trial, counsel for the



successful party committed some technical breach
of legal procedure. As Professor Roscoe Pound
of Harvard has said: "Our appellate courts do
not try the case ; they only try the record ; they
only decide whether all the outworn subordinate
rules of the game were carefully followed."

Former President Taft, in speaking of the ex-
cessive and unnecessary delay in legal procedure,
declared: "There is no subject upon which I feel
so deeply as upon the necessity for reform in the
administration of both civil and criminal law."
As an example of such delay in California it has
been shown that for all the cases reported in
Vol. 145 of the California Reports, an average of
1003 days, or almost three years, elapsed between
the filing of an appeal and the final judgment,
while the average time for the completion of a
case through all the courts was 2175 days, or
almost six years. Much of this delay is oc-
ca^oned by the number of cases appealed on
purely technical grounds. In England, where
new trials are not granted on such grounds, the
court of appeals, acting for 32,000,000 people,
grants only about twelve new trials per year.
In contrast to this, in one county alone in the
United States, with a population of less than
100,000 there were 38 appeals in one year, of
which 17 were reversed for technical errors,
which did not go to the merits of the case.

The adoption of the proposed amendment will
clothe the appellate courts with power to review
all points involved in a case — ^the facts as well
as the law. If the decision of the lower court is
found to be substantially correct, that judgment
will be affirmed. The incentive for getting error
Into the record for the sole purpose of securing
an appeal being removed, few cases will be ap-
pealed and litigants will be saved both delays and
expense. It will invest the appellate courts w^ith
power to sustain a verdict rendered by a jury
when such verdict is in accordance with the
facts, even though It violates some archaic rule
of procedure that under existing law would re-
quire a reversal of the declsion.

Since 1911, when the application of this prin-
ciple to criminal cases was adopted, the appellate
courts have repeatedly referred to the increased
power granted them to disregard errors not af-
fecting the merits of a case, and by the extension
of these powers to civil cases, the machinery of
our courts will be materially simplified and sub-
stantial justice done to litigants.

A. E. BOTNTON,

State Senator Sixth District.



PLACE OF PAYMENT OF BONDS AND INTEREST.

Senate Conslitutional Annendnnent 13 amending section 131 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-
lution proposing to the people of the State of
California an amendment to section thirteen
and one half of article eleven of the Constitu-
tion of the State of California, relating to the
place of payment of bonds, and the interest
thereon, of counties, cities and counties, cities,
municipalities, irrigation districts, and other
public corporations, and to the money in which
such bondfe and interest may be made payable.

The legislature of the State of California, at its
regular session, commencing on the 6th day of
January, in the year one thousand nine hundred
and thirteen, two thirds of all the members
elected to each of the two houses of said legisla-
ture voting thereon, hereby proposes to the quali-
fied electors of the State of California that sec-
tion thirteen and one half of article eleven of said
constitution be amended so as to read as follows :
Four



PROPOSED LAW.

Section 13 i. Any county, city and county,
city, town, municipality. Irrigation district, or
other public corporation, issuing bonds under
the laws of the state, is hereby authorized and
empowered to make said bonds and the Intcrcet
thereon payable at any place or places within or
outside of the United States, and In anv money,



Online LibraryCalifornia Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of StateAmendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... → online text (page 1 of 36)