Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

from which such annexing city and county was formed, together with territory which was concurrently, or has since such consolidation been joined in a county government with the area of the original county not included in such consolidated city and county.

If additional territory, which consists wholly of only one incorporated city, city and county or town, or which consists wholly of unincorporated territory, is proposed to be annexed to any consolidated city and county now existing or which shall hereafter be organized, then, upon the consent to any such annexation being given by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon in any county or counties in which any such additional territory is located, and upon the approval of such annexation proposal by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon in such city and county, and also upon the approval of the proposal hereinafter set forth by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon in the whole of such territory proposed to be annexed, the indebtedness hereinafter referred to shall be deemed to have been assumed, and at the time stated in such proposal, such additional territory and such city and county shall be and become one consolidated city and county, to be governed by the charter of the city and county proposing such annexation, and any subsequent amendment thereto.

The proposal to be submitted to the territory proposed to be annexed, shall be substantially in the following form and submitted as one indivisible question:

"Shall the territory (herein designate in general terms the territory to be annexed) consolidate with the city and county of (herein insert the name of the city and county initiating the annexation proposal) in a consolidated city and county government, said consolidation to take effect (herein insert date when such consolidation shall take effect) and shall the said annexed territory become subject to taxation, as an integral part of the city and county so formed, in accordance with the assessable valuation of property of said territory for the following indebtedness of said city and county of (herein insert name of the city and county) to-wit: (herein insert in general terms, reference to any debts to be assumed and if none insert 'none')."

If additional territory including unincorporated territory and one or more incorporated cities, cities and counties, or towns, or including more than one incorporated city, city and county, or town, is proposed to be annexed to any consolidated city and county now existing or which shall hereafter be organized, the consent of each such incorporated city, city and county, or town, shall be obtained by a majority vote of the qualified electors of any such incorporated city, city and county, or town, voting upon a proposal substantially as follows:

"Shall (herein insert name of the city, city and county, or town, to be included in such annexed territory) be included in a district to be hereafter defined by the city and county of (herein insert the name of the city and county initiating the annexation proposal) which district shall within two years from the date of this election vote upon a proposal submitted as one indivisible question, that such district to be then described and set forth shall consolidate with (herein insert name of the city and county initiating the annexation proposal) in a consolidated city and county government, and that such district become subject to taxation, along with the entire territory of the proposed city and county in accordance with the assessable valuation of the property of said district for the following indebtedness of said city and county of (herein insert name of the city and county initiating the annexation proposal) to-wit: (herein insert in general terms, reference to any debts to be assumed and if none insert 'none')."

Any and all incorporated cities, cities and counties, or towns, to which the foregoing proposal shall have been submitted, and a majority of whose qualified electors voting thereon shall have voted in favor thereof, together with such unincorporated territory as the city and county initiating such annexation proposal may desire to have included, the whole to form an area contiguous to said city and county, shall be created into a district by said city and county, and the proposal substantially in the form above set forth to be used when the territory proposed to be added consists wholly of only one incorporated city, city and county, or town, or wholly of unincorporated territory, shall, within said two years, be submitted to the voters of said entire district as one indivisible question,

Upon consent to any such annexation being given by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon in any county or counties in which any such territory proposed to be annexed to said city and county is located, and upon the approval of any such annexation proposal by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon in such city and county proposing such annexation, and also upon the approval of the proposal herein before set forth by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon in the whole of the district so proposed to be annexed, then, the said indebtedness referred to in said proposal shall be deemed to have been assumed, and upon the date stated in such annexation proposal such district and such city and county shall be and become one consolidated city and county, to be governed by the charter of the city and county proposing such annexation, and any subsequent amendment thereto.

Whenever any proposal is submitted to the electors of any county, territory, district, city, city and county, or town, as above provided, there shall be published, for at least five successive publications in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in any such county, territory, district, city, city and county, or town, the last publication to be not less than twenty days prior to any such election, a particular description of any territory or district to be separated, added, or annexed, together with a particular description of any debts to be assumed, as above referred to, unless such particular description is contained in the said proposal so submitted. In addition to said description, such territory shall also be designated in such notice by some appropriate name or other words of identification, by which such territory may be referred to and indicated upon the ballots to be used at any election at which the question of annexation or consolidation of additional territory is submitted as herein provided. If there be no such newspaper so printed and published in any such county, territory, district, city, city and county, or town, then such publication may be made in any newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the nearest county, city, city and county, or town where there may be such a newspaper so printed and published.

If, by the adoption of any charter, or by annexation, any incorporated municipality becomes a portion of a city and county, its property, debts and liabilities of every description shall be and become the property, debts and liabilities of such city and county.

Every city and county which shall be formed, or the territory of which shall be enlarged as herein provided from territory taken from any county or counties, shall be liable for a just proportion of the debts and liabilities and be entitled to a just proportion of the property and assets of such county or counties, existing at the time such territory is so taken.

The provisions of this constitution applicable to cities, and cities and counties, and also those applicable to counties, so far as not inconsistent or prohibited to cities, or cities and counties, shall be applicable to such consolidated city and county government; and no provision of subdivision 5 or 6 of this section shall be construed as a restriction upon the plenary authority of any city or city and county having a freeholders' charter, as provided for in this constitution, to determine in said charter any and all matters elsewhere in this constitution authorized and not inconsistent herewith.

The legislature shall provide for the formation of one or more counties from the portion or portions of a county or counties remaining after the formation of or annexation to a consolidated city and county, or for the transfer of such portion or portions of such original county or counties to adjoining counties. But such transfer to an adjoining county shall only be made after approval by a majority vote of the qualified electors voting thereon in such territory proposed to be so transferred.

The provisions of section two of this article, and also those provisions of section three of this article which refer to the passing of any county line within five miles of the exterior boundary of a city or town in which a county seat of any county proposed to be divided is situated, shall not apply to the formation of, nor to the extension of the territory of such consolidated cities and counties, nor to the formation of new counties, nor to the annexation of existing counties, as herein specified.

Any city and county formed under this section shall have

the right, if it so desires, to be designated by the official name of the city initiating the consolidation as it existed immediately prior to its adoption of a charter providing for a consolidated city and county government, except that such city and county shall be known under the style of a city and county.

It shall be competent in any charter framed for a consolidated city and county, or by amendment thereof, to provide for the establishment of a borough system of government for the whole or any part of the territory of said city and county, by which one or more districts may be created therein, which districts shall be known as boroughs and which shall exercise such municipal powers as may be granted thereto by such charter, and for the organization, regulation, government and jurisdiction of such boroughs.

No property in any territory hereafter consolidated with or annexed to any city or city and county shall be taxed for the payment of any indebtedness of such city or city and county outstanding at the date of such consolidation or annexation and for the payment of which the property in such territory was not, prior to such consolidation or annexation, subject to such taxation, unless there shall have been submitted to the qualified electors of such territory the proposition regarding the assumption of indebtedness as herein before set forth and the same shall have been approved by a majority of such electors voting thereon.

7. In all cases of annexation of unincorporated territory to an incorporated city, or the consolidation of two or more incorporated cities, assumption of existing bonded indebtedness by such unincorporated territory or by either of the cities so consolidating may be made by a majority vote of the qualified electors voting thereon in the territory or city which shall assume an existing bonded indebtedness. This provision shall apply whether annexation or consolidation is effected under this section or any other section of this constitution, and the provisions of section eighteen of this article shall not be a prohibition thereof.

The legislature shall enact such general laws as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section and such general or special laws as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of subdivisions 5 and 6 of this section, including any such general or special act as may be necessary to permit a consolidated city and county to submit a new charter to take effect at the time that any consolidation, by reason of annexation to such consolidated city and county, takes effect, and also, any such general law or special act as may be necessary to provide for any period after such consolidation, by reason of such annexation, takes effect, and prior to the adoption and approval of any such new charter.

Section 81, article XI, proposed to be amended, now reads as follows:

EXISTING LAW.

Section 81. It shall be competent, in all charters framed under the authority given by section eight of article eleven of this constitution, to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this constitution and by the laws of the state, as follows:

1. For the constitution, regulation, government, and jurisdiction of police courts, and for the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the judges of such courts shall be elected or appointed, and for the qualifications and compensation of said judges and of their clerks and attaches.

2. For the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the members of boards of education shall be elected or appointed, for their qualifications, compensation and removal, and for the number which shall constitute any one of such boards.

3. For the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the members of the boards of police commissioners shall be elected or appointed, and for the constitution, regulation, compensation, and government of such boards and of the municipal police force.

4. For the manner in which and the times at which any municipal election shall be held and the result thereof determined; for the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the members of all boards of election shall be elected or appointed, and for the constitution,

regulation, compensation and government of such boards, and of their clerks and attaches; and for all expenses incident to the holding of any elec tion.

Where a city and county government has been merged and consolidated into one municipal government, it shall also be competent, in any charter framed under said section eight of said article eleven, or by amendment thereto, to provide for the manner in which, the times at which and the terms for which the several county and municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by such city and county, excepting judges of the superior court, shall be elected or appointed, and for their recall and removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees. All provisions of any charter of any such consolidated city and county heretofore adopted, and amendments thereto, which are in accordance herewith, are hereby confirmed and declared valid. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF OAKLAND CON

SOLIDATION AMENDMENT.

This is known as the Oakland, or 50,000 population amendment, as distinguished from the so-called San Francisco, or 175,000 population amendment. Both are amendments of section 8 of article XI of the constitution, governing the formation of combined city and county governments. The Oakland amendment would permit any city of over 50,000 population to form a combined city and county government; the San Francisco amendment fixes the minimum population at 175,000. The former prohibits and the latter permits the indiscriminate crossing of county lines.

This so-called Oakland or 50,000 population amendment should be adopted because it permits the normal formation and expansion of combined city and county governments, and because it prohibits the disintegration of counties in the course of such formation or expansion.

The formation of combined city and county governments does away with unnecessary duplication in the creation and filling of public offices and in the doing of public business. When taxes are levied upon the same piece of property to raise money with which to pay a city official and a county official for performing the same or a similar public service, such taxes are unnecessarily burdensome, and public funds are wasted. The formation of combined city and county governments eliminates this double taxation, without depriving the communities concerned of the benefits of either city or county government.

A further reason for adopting this proposed amendment is that it puts a stamp of disapproval upon all attempts of San Francisco to cross San Francisco bay for the purpose of annexing the choicest portions of the counties on the east and on the north. It permits San Francisco to expand down the peninsula, along logical and natural lines, and where such expansion is apparently desired, but it prevents any such expansion across the natural barrier of San Francisco bay, an expansion which if permitted would in time make San Francisco in California what New York city is in New York state-the dominant factor in the political and official life

of the entire state.

The amendment should be adopted because it permits the normal and beneficial formation and expansion of combined city and county governments, and prevents the abnormal and detrimental in the expansion of such governments.

After careful investigation, the chambers of commerce and the public officials of Los Angeles and of San Francisco have abandoned their support of the so-called 175,000 population amendment, the amendment that would permit San Francisco to annex all or parts of Alameda. Contra Costa and Marin counties, as well as

San Mateo, and have publicly endorsed and approved this, the 50,000 population amendment, the amendment that would permit San Francisco to expand down the peninsula, and would permit other cities besides San Francisco and Los Angeles to form city and county governments; and have joined with the other cities throughout the state in asking that this proposed constitutional amendment be adopted.

CHARLES A. BEARDSLEY. ARGUMENT AGAINST OAKLAND CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENT.

The substitute amendment to section 8 of article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, submitted by the city of Oakland and subsequently accepted by San Francisco and Los Angeles, should be designated an amendment to permit secession of cities and the division of counties.

It is a measure designed to magnify the political powers of the three cities named, and permit them, by augmenting their areas, to dominate the State of California in the legislature.

It is an effort on the part of the special interests entrenched in cities to extend their taxing powers and exploit the people, through the purchase of certain utilities involving vast bonded indebtedness. Its initiative lies in the desire to distribute the liabilities for the water supplies and other corporate properties to be purchased by San Franciso and Los Angeles.

It involves the appropriation for exclusive municipal use of waters that are necessary to the development of the farms, the orchards, and the mines, upon which the prosperity of the state depends.

It is a cunningly devised scheme to dismember and weaken the counties and to withhold contribution by the cities to the development of the back country from which they draw their patronage and sustenance.

It further permits any city with a population of fifty thousand or over to withdraw or secede from the county in which it is located, with such territory and taxable property as it may take, and set up a city and county government separate from the county of which it was formerly a part. Los Angeles does not disguise its design, by annexing certain communities, to coerce them into taking the Owens river water, augmenting municipal revenues, and openly declares its purpose of seceding from the county of Los Angeles, and forming a city and county of Los Angeles, as San Francisco has already done, and as Oakland appears to be ambitious of doing.

The joint assets of San Francisco, of Oakland, and of the other east bay shore cities are to be massed through this amendment in liability for the Spring Valley purchase and other items in the San Francisco water supply scheme, as those of Los Angeles county are to support the Owens river project. The "working agreement" between politicians and financiers promoting this amendment is another evidence that "special interests make strange bedfellows."

Purchasing immunity at the price of bad faith, Oakland makes an alliance with its former enemies at the expense of its former friends, and, casting consistency to the winds, consents to the dismemberment of other counties, provided its own territory is protected from invasion.

Every argument which Oakland advanced to the people of California two years ago in its own defense may be invoked against the amendment which it now advocates.

In its frantic appeal to the voters of the state to protect it from "the menace" of annexation to San Francisco, Oakland argued against the amendment permitting county division because(a) "it is special legislation of the most vicious sort"; (b) it "breaks down the present constitutional defense of the territorial integrity of counties"; (c) "it facilitates the division and dismemberment of counties"; (d) "it is a measure that will contribute to increase the political power and prestige of the San Francisco machine and enable it to dominate the political situation in California__as completely as Tammany Hall does in New York"; (e) "if adopted, it will make it possible for San Francisco and Los Angeles to control absolutely the legislature of California"; (f) "it would open the way for San Francisco to secure control of practically all the commercial water front of both sides of the bay, to throttle competition in ocean commerce, and to nullify the advantages to the people of the Panama canal"; (g) "it would saddle upon the cities to be annexed a staggering burden of bonded indebtedness"; (h) "its adoption would be a statewide calamity."

If this was true then, it is true now!

Responding to Oakland's cry of distress, the people of California defeated the amendment two years ago by 106,000 majority, with an adverse vote in every county except San Francisco and the counties of San Mateo and Marin, which San Francisco commuters dominate.

Now, Oakland, upon the assurance that, for the present, San Francisco puts aside its ambition to annex Oakland and is content to absorb San Mateo county, makes common cause with San Francisco and Los Angeles in an effort to force upon the counties of California a measure which is a menace to their political and territorial integrity, an amendment which will strengthen the special interests which govern the great cities, so notoriously corrupt, in the control of the legislature of the State of California. Such predominating power in the large cities would mean that they would secure legislation favorable to their interests and the lion's share of the revenue produced by the people of California in appropriations for the benefit of these cities at the expense of the rest of the state. It is inconceivable that the citizens of California can be deceived by the specious arguments of this "triple alliance" into voting to create an oligarchy of cities to dominate the state. On both the original San Francisco-Los Angeles amendment to section 8 of article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, and the Oakland substitute, which is now supported by the politicians and private interests of all three cities, the people of the State of California should vote "No." EDW. K. STROBRIDGE. State Senator Thirteenth District.

DEPOSIT OF PUBLIC MONEYS.

Initiative amendment to section 16 of article XI of constitution. Present section unchanged except in following particulars: Authorizes banks in which public moneys are deposited to furnish, as security, bonds of districts within municipalities, or of a corporation qualified to act as sole surety on bonds or undertakings, to an amount in value, or with a penalty, of at least ten per cent over amount of deposit; provides that no deposit under section shall exceed at any time fifty per cent of paid up capital and surplus of depository bank.

The electors of the State of California hereby propose to the people of the State of California that section 16 of article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, relating to the deposit of public moneys, be amended so as to read as follows:

PROPOSED LAW.

Section 162. All moneys belonging to the state or to any county or municipality within this state may be deposited in any national bank or banks

within this state, or in any bank or banks organized under the laws of this state, in such manner and under such conditions as may be provided by law: provided. that such bank or banks in which such moneys are deposited shall furnish as security for such deposits bonds of the United States or of this state, or of any county, municinality or school district within this state, or of anv irrigation district within this state. or of any district within any municipality authorized under

the laws of this state to issue bonds, or the bond of a corporation qualified to act as sole surety on bonds or undertakings required by the laws of this state, to be approved by the officer or officers designated by law, to an amount in value, or with a penalty, of at least ten per cent in excess of the amount of such deposit; and provided that such bank or banks shall pay a reasonable rate of interest not less than two per cent per annum on the daily balances therein deposited; and provided that no deposit shall at any time exceed fifty per cent of the paid up capital and surplus of such depository bank or banks; and provided, further, that no officer shall deposit at one time more than twenty per cent of such public moneys available for deposit in any bank while there are other qualified banks requesting such deposits.

Section 16, article XI, proposed to be amended, now reads as follows:

EXISTING LAW.

the

Section 161. All moneys belonging to state, or to any county or municipality within this state, may be deposited in any national bank or banks within this state, or in any bank or banks organized under the laws of this state, in such manner and under such conditions as may be provided by law; provided, that such bank or banks in which such moneys are deposited shall furnish as security for such deposits, bonds of the United States, or of this state or of any county, municipality or school district within this state, or of any irrigation district within this state, to be approved by the officer or officers designated by law, to an amount in value of at least ten per cent in excess of the amount of such deposit; and provided, that such bank or banks shall pay a reasonable rate of interest, not less than two per cent per annum on the daily balances therein deposited; and provided, that no deposit shall at any one time exceed fifty per cent of the paid-up capital stock of such depository bank or banks; and provided, further, that no officer shall deposit at one time more than twenty per cent of such public moneys available for deposit in any bank while there are other qualified banks requesting such deposits. ARGUMENT FAVOR CERTAIN SECURITIES FOR PUBLIC MONEYS.

The people of the State of California lose more than half a million dollars each year in interest on over twenty-five million dollars idle money in the vaults of the state treasurer and the various county and city treasurers. The treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco now has nearly four million dollars cash on hand, and at certain times of the year this runs up to over six millions. The other cities and counties of the state carry idle money in varying proportions.

The object in seeking to amend this section of the constitution is:

First-To secure the benefit to the people of the state of having all of the public money in active circulation at all times with ample security to be given by the banks for. its payment to the respective treasurers on demand.

Second-To secure for the state and the counties and cities therein interest on these vast sums of idle money, and thereby reduce taxes to that extent.

In practically all of the other states, these favorable conditions have been brought about by acts of the legislatures, and public money in such states is never withdrawn from circulation; it is always deposited in banks, upon the banks furnishing good and sufficient security. In California, it is necessary to bring about this result by constitutional amendment, because of the fact that when the constitution was adopted its framers did not take into consideration the wide scope of present day bankable securities and collaterals, and the banks are not in a position to take all of the public money, if they can

[blocks in formation]

If you are in favor of having the people get the interest they are entitled to on their public money, and of having all the money in circulation, with the further advantage of reducing the risk and expense of safeguarding this money from burglary, vote "Yes" on the amendment. LESLIE E. BURKS.

ARGUMENT AGAINST CERTAIN SECURITIES FOR PUBLIC MONEYS.

This proposed amendment to section 16, article XI, of the Constitution of the State of California, to be submitted at the general election to be held November 3, 1914, should be voted down for the following reasons:

First-Moneys belonging to the state or any county or municipality within this state are imposed with a special trust that they should be at all times available for public purposes.

There is a potency about cash that does not attach to any form of security, and the cash belonging to the public should be available in every emergency. Whatever militates against this availability is bad public policy.

As section 16 stands without this proposed amendment, it permits the deposit of bonds of the United States, or of this state, or of any county, municipality, or school district, or of any irrigation district within this state, with the officers designated by law as custodians of the state or county or municipality moneys. The change contemplated by the amendment adds the bonds of any district within any municipality authorized under the laws of this state to issue bonds, or the bond of a corporation qualified to act as sole surety on bonds or undertakings required by the laws of this state. It will be observed, therefore, that the change adds two additional classes of security to be deposited with the respective treasurers: (a) bonds of a district within a municipality; (b) bonds of a surety company.

The addition of "bonds of a surety company" constitutes the vice of this amendment. There is apt to be confusion arising in the minds of the voters by the use of the word "bond." The bond of the United States, or of this state, or of any county, municipality, or school district, is a strict contract for the payment of money, like a promissory note, whereas the bond of a corpora-tion qualified to act as sole surety is a contract of indemnity, and a very different thing from the bond of a municipality. This confusion arises out of the popular use of the word "bond." Now in the case of the deposit of bonds of a municipality, county treasurers have an instrument which they can go out in the open market and sell. In the case of a bond of a surety company they have nothing they can go out and sell, and in the event of a failure to repay the moneys deposited with the bank the officer holding the bond of a surety company is put to a suit at law to recover the penalty. These bonds, being of indemnity or surety, the opportunities of defense to any suit that arises upon them are multiplied by the extreme technicality of the law relating to contracts of indemnity or surety, and the numerous cases that our reports contain indicate that in many instances the party for whose benefit a bond is made fails to recover.

The people should not be tricked into voting

in favor of this amendment by reason of the similarity of the word "bond" in each instance, because in effect they are two very different instruments. If every voter would ask himself whether he was better protected for the loan of money by having United States bonds as security, or by having the bonds of a surety company, he would realize the difference and the vicious effect of this amendment.

Second-The law as it has stood ever since its enactment has given entire satisfaction. Not only that, but there has not been a semblance of loss by any county or municipality in this state under its workings. There is no public demand for any change, there has been no county treasurer but what has been able to deposit his money with banks if he so desired, and no bank has been unable to obtain money that had the proper securities; therefore the object in making the amendment must have some ulterior purpose. Of course the ulterior purpose is to increase the business of surety companies, most of whom are foreign corporations. It is not designed for public benefit. There is no need or necessity of the amendment, except to contribute to the selfish ends of the surety companys.

Third-It is frequently necessary for either the state, or for counties or municipalities or school districts within this state, to obtain moneys by the issuance of bonds. Whatever will increase the premium paid for the purchase of said bonds to the municipalities is so much to the good to

the political entity making the sale. Whatever increases the demand for such bonds increases this premium. The use of bonds for the purpose of deposit with county treasurers in order that cash may be withdrawn to banks increases the demand. It offers additional use for the bonds and additional inducement for their purchase. Since the enactment of section 16 it has conduced greatly to the benefit of the political entities of the state issuing bonds, because it has vastly increased the market for such bonds, thereby increasing the demand and insuring a higher premium for the bonds sold. Now it is proposed to bring these municipal bonds in competition with the bonds of a surety company. This will

diminish the demand, consequently diminish the premium, and thereby diminish the benefits accruing to the political entities issuing the bonds. It thus militates against the best interests of the county or school district or municipality desiring to issue bonds, and for that reason should be voted down.

Fourth-In spite of whatever care the legislature may take in passing an enabling act and providing safeguards for the issuance of surety bonds, this amendment will offer opportunities for banks to form surety companies, operated by dummies, permitting collusion and fraudulently obtaining large sums of money from public entities.

For these reasons the voter should vote "No" upon this amendment. L. H. ROSEBERRY.

PRIZE FIGHTS.

Initiative act amending Penal Code. Prohibits the engaging in or furthering in any way prize fights or remunerative boxing exhibitions, training therefor, or betting thereon; the conducting, participating in or witnessing any boxing exhibitions on Memorial Day or Sunday; authorizes regulated four-round amateur boxing exhibitions unless prohibited by ordinance; provides for arrest of persons about to promote or participate in prohibited contests and requires bond against committing offense; declares self-incrimination no disqualification of witness; prohibits his prosecution for offense disclosed; authorizes conviction upon accomplice's uncorroborated testimony; prescribes penalties.

The electors of the State of California present to the secretary of state this petition, and request that the proposed law, amending sections 412, 413 and 413 of the Penal Code, relating to sparring or boxing exhibitions and prohibiting prize fights and the laying of bets or wagers upon the result thereof, and adding a new section to the Penal Code, numbered 414a, hereinafter set forth, be submitted to the people of the State of California for their approval or rejection at the next ensuing general election, or as provided by law.

An act to amend sections four hundred and twelve, four hundred and thirteen, and four hundred and thirteen and one-half of the Penal Code relating to sparring or boxing exhibitions and prohibiting prize fights and the laying of bets or wagers upon the result thereof; and to add one new section to said Penal Code, to be numbered 414a, relating to prize fights and boxing exhibitions, and giving testimony in trials relating thereto. The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

Section 1. Section four hundred and twelve of the Penal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

412. Any person, who, within this state, engages in, or instigates, aids, encourages, or does any act to further, a pugilistic contest, or fight, or ring or prize fight, or sparring or boxing exhibition, taking or to take place either within or without this state, between two or more persons, with or without gloves, for any price, reward or compensation, directly or indirectly, or who goes into training preparatory to such pugilistic contest, or fight, or ring or prize fight, or sparring or boxing exhibition, or acts as aider, abettor, backer, umpire, referee, trainer, second, surgeon, or assistant, at such pugilistic contest, or fight, or ring or prize fight, or sparring or boxing exhibition, or who sends or publishes a

challenge or acceptance of a challenge, or who knowingly carries or delivers such challenge or acceptance, or who gives or takes or receives any tickets, tokens, prize, money, or thing of value, from any person or persons, for the purpose of seeing or witnessing any such pugilistic contest, or fight, or ring or prize fight, or sparring or boxing exhibition, or who, being the owner, lessee, agent, or occupant of any vessel, building, hotel, room, enclosure or ground, or any part thereof, whether for gain, hire, reward or gratuitously or otherwise, permits the same to be used or occupied for such a pugilistic contest, or fight, or ring or prize fight, or sparring or boxing exhibition, or who lays, makes, offers or accepts, a bet or bets, or wager or wagers, upon the result or any feature of any pugilistic contest, or fight, or ring or prize fight, or sparring or boxing exhibition, or acts as stakeholder of any such bet or bets, or wager or wagers, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars and be imprisoned in the county jail not less than thirty days nor exceeding one year; provided, however, that amateur boxing exhibitions may be held within this state, of a limited number of rounds, not exceeding four of the duration of three minutes each; the interval between each round shall be one minute, and the contestants weighing one hundred and forty-five pounds or over shall wear gloves of not less than eight ounces each in weight, and contestants weighing under one hundred and forty-five pounds may wear gloves of not less than six ounces each in weight. All gloves used by contestants in such amateur boxing exhibitions shall be so constructed, as that the soft padding between the outside coverings shall be evenly distributed over the back of said gloves and cover the knuckles and back of the hands. And no bandages of any kind shall be used on the hands or arms of the contestants. For the purpose of this statute an amateur boxing exhibition shall be and is hereby defined as one in

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »