Ex parte People ex rel. Atty. Gen.

Decision Date01 June 1850
Citation1 Cal. 85
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesTHE PEOPLE EX REL. THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL, EX PARTE.

BY an Act of the Legislature, passed at its first session, entitled "an Act for the better regulation of the mines, and the government of foreign miners," foreigners were not permited to mine in this State without obtaining a monthly license for that purpose, for which every foreigner was required to pay the sum of twenty dollars per month. In order to test the constitutionality of this Act of the Legislature, the Attorney-General presented a petition to this Court, in which he set forth that L. A. Besançon had been appointed and commissioned "collector of licenses to foreign miners" for the County of Tuoulmne, and that by virtue of such appointment, he had collected a considerable amount of money from foreigners engaged in mining, who were residents of the County of Tuolumne, and that he was still proceeding in the exercise of his office. The petitioner claimed that the Act of the Legislature was contrary to, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, and the Treaties of the United States with foreign nations, and particularly in violation of the treaties made by the United States, respectively, with Great Britain, France, Mexico, and Chile; and that the collection of the license tax by Besançon was an unwarrantable usurpation of office, and was working great injury to the interests of society and the welfare of the State. The petitioner, thereupon, prayed that leave might be granted him to file an information in this Court in the nature of a quo warranto against the said Besançon, and that he should be required to appear and show by what authority he exercised the office of "collector of licenses to foreign miners."

S. Heydenfeldt, on behalf of the Attorney-General.

By the Court, HASTINGS, Ch. J. The counsel who appears for the Attorney-General in support of this petition, has, with much ability, urged upon the consideration of this Court the two following points:

1. The jurisdiction of this Court to issue writs of quo warranto.

2. The merits of the present petition. The merits of the application ought not to be further inquired into (if the Court possess the jurisdiction), than to ascertain whether there be reasonable ground for making the investigation prosposed, inasmuch as such a question should remain open and undecided until all parties in interest shall be fully heard. Therefore this position of the counsel will not be further examined on the present petition. As to the jurisdiction of this Court to issue such writs, it becomes important to consider the consequences which are to follow directly affecting the rules of practice in thic Court, should we entertain such a jurisdiction. It will be conceded that the office of this writ is to prevent the usurpation of any office, franchise or liberty, as also to afford a remedy against corporations for a violation of their charters tending to a forfeiture thereof. (Graham on Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, 198.) It must follow, from the exercise of the remedies which this writ affords, that juries are to be empannelled to try the various issues of facts which, from the nature of the investigation, would be of a wide range and of the most exciting character. Another consequence is the introduction into this Court of rules of pleading of Courts of original jurisdiction as to the making up of issues, subpoenaing witnesses, taking of depositions, granting continuances, rendering final judgments, and issuing final process.

Such being some of the consequences resulting from this jurisdiction, the question is at once suggested, whether the framers of the Constitution of this State and the Legislature intended to confer it upon this Court, and whether by necessary implication we are not bound to infer an absolute inhibition against the exercise of such power. The Legislature have not provided this Court with a jury in any case, nor authorized it to cause an issue of facts to be made up in this Court and referred to another Court for trial. It is intended by the policy of our judicial system that all issues of facts are to be tried before the District and other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. West v. Cobb
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 14, 1909
  • North Point Consolidated Irrigation Co. v. Utah & Salt Lake Canal Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1896
    ... ... Arredondo, 6 Peters ... 725, and Ex Parte Attorney General, 1 Cal. 85. Neither of ... these cases is ... people intended to grant the right of appeal from all final ... ...
  • Eastman v. Gurrey
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1896
    ... ... 307, 6 Cranch ... 307, 3 L.Ed. 232; Ex parte Attorney General, 1 Cal ... 85; Ex parte McCardle, 74 ... ...
  • In re Simpson
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1900
    ... ... the removal of attorneys are judicial acts. Ex parte Secombe, ... 19 How. 9, 60 U.S. 565; Ex parte Garland, 4 ... licenses admitting to the profession. People v ... Green, 7 Col. 244, 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. L. (1st Ed.) ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT