Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The new city begins proceedings under the charter prepared by the legislature for cities of its class. If its population increases so that it passes to a higher class, it may change its charter by a vote of its people.

77. Disincorporation. The law provides a method whereby a city may disincorporate by a vote of its people. The corporate existence of a city may also be terminated for cause by a decision of court; 2 or, if a city was incorporated by a special act of the legislature prior to 1879, it may be disincorporated by the legislature.3 Furthermore, communities have incorporated and have exercised municipal functions for a time, and, because of a falling off in population, have simply ceased to act as cities. In such cases their municipal powers lapse for want of use.4

78. Change of Boundaries. No two cities may be consolidated without the consent of each. The city council, or board of trustees, of the larger city, upon the receipt of a petition from each city, signed by 20 per cent of its voters, must call an election in each city to determine the question of consolidation. In order to be carried, the proposition must be approved by a majority of the votes cast in each city. No outside territory may be annexed to a city without its consent as well as that of the city. The city council, upon the receipt of a petition from the outside territory, and another from the city, signed in each case by 20 per cent of the voters, must call an election to determine the question of annexation. In order to be carried, the proposition must be approved by a majority vote in the outside territory, as well as in the city. No territory may be excluded from a city without the consent of the territory in question, and of the city as a whole. The election in this case is called by the city council, or board of trustees, on receipt of a petition signed by a majority of the voters of the city.

1 Kelseyville, Lake county incorporated in 1888, and disincorporated in 1902. 'Plainsburg, Merced county, was incorporated in 1892, and dissolved by the superior court in 1893.

The legislature in 1901 repealed an act passed in 1866 incorporating Downieville, Sierra county, and in 1909 repealed an act passed in 1858 incorporating Coloma, Eldorado county. There are other such cases.

Felton, Santa Cruz county; Hornitos, Mariposa county; Markleeville, Alpine county; Meadow Lake, Nevada county, are examples.

79. The Relation of Cities to the United States. — The inhabitants of every city must obey national laws, and persons who break these laws are subject to arrest and punishment by national officers. A United States marshal may make arrests in a city without any reference to the city police department. On the request of the governor of a state the President will send federal troops into a city to aid in preserving order against mob violence; or, if national laws are being broken, he may order federal troops to interfere without the request of the governor and even in spite of his protest.1 In enforcing federal law within a city the United States does not deal with the city as a public corporation, but with the people of the city as individuals. They are under the national jurisdiction, as well as that of the city, county, and state. The United States deals with individuals also in the matter of carrying and distributing the mail. Post-office employees are appointed and paid by the national government, and are in no way responsible to any local government.

[ocr errors]

80. The Relation of Cities to the State. A city as a public corporation sustains a very close and vital relation to the state. It derives its corporate existence from the state. Its charter was granted by the state and may be repealed by the state. When the legislature grants a charter to a city, it surrenders into the hands of the city government the power to legislate concerning local affairs; a power which otherwise would reside in the legislature, except in so far as the legislature may have vested it in other public corporations. A city charter is therefore a grant of

1 In 1894 President Cleveland ordered federal troops to restore order in Chicago in spite of the governor's protest.

2 Many of our state supreme court decisions support this statement. See, for example, Blanding vs. Burr, 13 Cal. 343; Desmond vs. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242.

authority to the city to exercise within its borders a portion of the sovereign power of the state. Its powers are definitely enumerated in the charter, and it may exercise no other powers.

A city does two kinds of work: (1) it looks after its local or municipal affairs, and (2) it acts as the agent of the state in looking after matters of state-wide importance.1 The municipal affairs of a city relate to such matters as the streets and their use, public parks, the granting of franchises, the care of city property, the control of public service corporations, the development of commercial possibilities, etc. These matters are of interest only to the people of the city. But there are other matters, which, on first thought, may seem to be only local in their importance, but which are really of vital interest to the entire state. This is true of education, because the citizens of every city participate in governing the entire state, and the well-being of the state depends in large measure upon the intelligence of its citizens. It is true of the suppression of crime and the preservation of order, because a city which neglects these matters becomes

1 No clear line has ever been drawn between the municipal affairs of a city and the matters of state-wide importance under its control. Our state supreme court has declared certain matters to be municipal affairs, and others to be state affairs; but it has not formulated a rule for making the distinction, except to state in very general terms that "A municipal affair is one which refers to the internal business affairs of a municipality." It has been held that the care and control of streets, parks, and public buildings; the issuing of licenses; the method of passing ordinances; the management of city elections; and the protection of the public health are all municipal affairs, and are thus controlled by charter provisions rather than by general laws. But it has been held that any general law is binding in a city, even though it relates to a municipal affair, if the charter contains no provision relative to it. See 118 Cal. 474; 126 Cal. 383; 127 Cal. 663; 141 Cal. 204; 161 Cal. 265; 132 Cal. 373, 381.

The annexation of territory, the public school system, and the courts and control of crime are held to be matters of state-wide importance, and are thus governed by general laws rather than by charter provisions. See 140 Cal. 554; 148 Cal. 625; 154 Cal. 220; 155 Cal. 604.

dangerous to the state at large. Thus every city, through its school, police, and judicial departments, acts as the agent of the state. These departments are really branches of the state government, no matter how the persons comprising them are selected, or from what source they are paid. Our American principle of local self-government thus works out in detail.

Two important facts growing out of this dual nature of a city's work should be pointed out:

1. If a conflict should arise between a provision of a freeholders' or a special city charter and a general state law, the charter would prevail if the question at issue related to any of the municipal affairs of the city; but the state law would prevail if a matter of state-wide importance were involved.1

2. A city may be sued for any damage that may result from errors or negligence on the part of its officers, or agents, when engaged in looking after such municipal affairs as partake of the nature of business enterprises, such as the selling of water, gas, or electric power; 2 but it may not be sued for any damage growing out of errors or negligence on the part of its officers, or agents, when looking after such municipal affairs as are necessary items in the carrying on of its government, such as caring for its streets, erecting

1 A class charter is regarded as a general law, and for this reason it may be amended at any time by the legislature. Thus a class charter must not conflict with general laws, even in respect to municipal affairs. See 142 Cal. 694; also 143 Cal. 554.

The question may be asked, why is a city that is governed by a class charter not a quasi corporation? It is not for three reasons: first, a class charter is enacted for cities of a certain size, not for all cities in the state, and is, therefore, a general law in form and theory more than in fact; second, it confers greater powers and privileges than are granted to counties or other quasi corporations, thus providing for the care of municipal affairs; and third, it is used only by such cities of the required population as choose to adopt it.

2 84 Pacific Reporter, 760.

public buildings, protecting the public health, etc.,1 or when acting as the agent of the state,2 unless the city charter or the state law, as the case may be, makes the city liable for the damage.3

We are now in a position to understand a very vital distinction between municipal and quasi corporations, which will further aid us in understanding the relations between a city and the state. A quasi corporation has no municipal affairs, but acts as the agent of the state in everything that it does. This could not be otherwise because no quasi corporation has an existence separate from the state. Every such public corporation is a part of the state from every point of view. From the point of view of its municipal

1 45 Cal. 36; 51 Cal. 52; 61 Cal. 271; 115 Cal. 648.

2 63 Cal. 13.

The law permits cities or counties to be sued for injuries to property done or caused by mobs or riots.

The courts of our various states uniformly hold that cities are liable for injuries to persons or property that result from errors or negligence on the part of its officers or agents when managing municipal business enterprises. The courts are also uniform in holding that cities are not liable for injuries growing out of errors or negligence on the part of its officers or agents when looking after state affairs. But this uniformity disappears when injuries arise in connection with the management of the general municipal affairs of a city. In California, unlike the practice in most states, cities are not liable for injuries sustained through defective streets, street work, building operations, or through accidents that occur in connection with the work of the fire or the health department.

4 To be sure, the common wants that give rise to the formation of irrigation districts, sanitary districts, etc., as well as many of the wants and interests of every county, are local in character; but they are practically the same in every neighborhood, or county, in the state, and thus each kind of quasi corporation may be and is governed by the same general law. A quasi corporation acts as the agent of the state, not because everything that it does is of state-wide importance, but because in everything that it does it is governed by, or acts under the authority of, gencral state law. No special law applies to it, and it has no true charter.

It follows that no quasi corporations may be sued except in so far as the state law permits. In general the law permits them to be sued if necessary to compel them to fulfill their contracts, provided the contracts relate to transactions that are authorized by law. If, under any kind of contract or agreement, one should work for, sell material to, or lend money to, any public corporation — quasi or municipal —

« AnteriorContinuar »