If this constitutional amendment is adopted a method will be devised, practically without expense to the state, by which the increased number of appeals will be rapidly taken care of and finally concluded with little delay. The supreme court has the right, which it frequently 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 disposed of so that at the termination of such extra sessions a case will appear for argument upon the next calendar called by it, after the filing of the transcript on appeal. When this is accomplished, 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 supreme court for a rehearing, which rehearing will of course be granted in the event the decision of the court of appeal is incorrect. JAMES J. RYAN, ARGUMENT AGAINST ASSEMBLY CONSTI. The reasons why Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 32 should not be adopted are briefly enumerated as follows: First-The principal objection to this amendment 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 regularly 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 extra 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, because where congestion exists in one district now, sufficient cases are transferred to an uncongested 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 officials 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 motions 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 determined by the duly elected *** justices." Fifth-This amendment would have the effect of creating further congestion in the superior courts, 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 amendment is very confusing in parts, particularly its reference to justices pro tempore of the "Supreme Court," when the context clearly indicates that it means "Court of Appeal," and also where the word "section" is used in one place, but evidently intended the word "session." For the above mentioned reasons, the writer MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. Senate Constitutional Amendment 12 amending section 4 of article VI of constitution. Omits from present section word "criminal," thereby providing that no judgment 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. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 12, a resolution to propose to the peop 'e 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 voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. by amending section four and one half of article six thereof, to read as follows: PROPOSED LAW. Section 41. No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted. In any case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of 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 resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Section 41. article VI, proposed to be amended, now reads as follows: EXISTING LAW. Section 41. No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted in any criminal case on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper 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 resulted in a miscarriage of justice. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SENATE CON STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 12. The decisions of the supreme court of California 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 miscarriage and denial of justice to one of the parties to the action and always to the inconvenience of other litigants. The purpose of Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 12 is to help overcome 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 KEHOE, State Senator First District. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 12 is designed to prevent the reversal of civil cases by courts of appeal on purely technical grounds. In 1911 the writer had the privilege of introducing in the legislature an amendment to the constitution, which provided that in all criminal cases, no judgment should be reversed, on appeal, except when such judgment would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. This amendment was unanimously adopted by both houses of the legislature, was overwhelmingly ratified by the people, and is now known as section 4 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, however, is thwarted by having decisions of the lower courts reversed because certain rules of procedure were broken. In scores of cases appellate judges have reluctantly set aside meritorious 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 excessive 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 occasioned 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 appealed and litigants will be saved both delays and expense. It will invest the appellate courts with 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 require a reversal of the decision. Since 1911, when the application of this principle to criminal cases was adopted, the appellate courts have repeatedly referred to the increased power granted them to disregard errors not affecting 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 substantial justice done to litigants. A. E. BOYNTON, PLACE OF PAYMENT OF BONDS AND INTEREST. Senate Constitutional Amendment 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 resolution proposing to the people of the State of California an amendment to section thirteen and one half of article eleven of the Constitution 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 bonds 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 legislature voting thereon, hereby proposes to the qualified electors of the State of California that section thirteen and one half of article eleven of said constitution be amended so as to read as follows: PROPOSED LAW. Section 131. 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 interest thereon payable at any place or places within or outside of the United States, and in any money, domestic or foreign, designated in said bonds. Section 131, article XI, proposed to be amended, now reads as follows: EXISTING LAW. Section 131. Nothing in this constitution contained shall be construed as prohibiting the state or any county, city and county, city, town, municipality, or other public corporation, issuing bonds under the laws of the state, to make said bonds payable at any place within the United States designated in said bonds. EXEMPTING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FROM TAXATION. Senate Constitutional Amendment 15 adding section 1a to article XIII of constitution. Exempts from taxation buildings, grounds within which same are located not exceeding one hundred acres, equipment, securities and income used exclusively for educational purposes, of any educational institution of collegiate grade within this state not conducted for profit. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 15, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California by adding a new section to said constitution to be numbered section one a of article thirteen thereof, relating to exempting certain property of educational institutions of collegiate grade from taxation. The legislature of the State of California at its regular session, commencing on the sixth day of January in the year nineteen hundred thirteen, two thirds of all the members elected to each of the two houses of the said legislature voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes to the qualified electors of the State of California, the following amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, by adding a new section thereto to be numbered one a of article thirteen thereof, to read as follows: PROPOSED LAW. Section 1a. Any educational institution of collegiate grade, within the State of California, not conducted for profit, shall hold exempt from taxation its buildings and equipment, its grounds within which its buildings are located, not exceeding one hundred acres in area, its securties and income used exclusively for the purposes of education. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SENATE CONSTI TUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 15. First-Every state in the union, except California, exempts college property from taxation. California should not be the only state to discourage the investment of private capital in higher education. In all other states the income from benefactions to colleges may be used wholly for the purpose for which such benefactions are made; here it must be in part diverted to such objects as road building and the lighting of streets. Thus California suffers a distinct disadvantage with patrons of education, such as the great philanthropic boards of the East. The state should assure outsiders desiring to make gifts for education in California that every dollar will be used for the purpose intended. Second-The various colleges of the state are performing a service of the highest importance, at a cost far in excess of the amount derived from tuition. The state should not add the burden of taxation to their other expenses, which are met by endowment and by private gifts. Third-California has already by special constitutional amendments exempted some schools from the taxation of their educational "plants," such as Stanford University, and Cogswell Polytechnical College in San Francisco. The proposed amendment will abolish discrimination, treating all colleges alike. Fourth-The proposed amendment will not take a dollar from the state treasury itself, since the state revenues are no longer derived from the general property tax. This amendment merely enables the localities where colleges are situated, and which therefore receive the chief benefit from them, to exempt them from taxation. Fifth-The total cost of this proposed policy is insignificant. The taxes paid in 1912-1913 by all the institutions known to be affected by this amendment amounted to only $20.976, a sum wholly inconsiderable from the standpoint of county and city government, but imposing a heavy burden on the slim financial resources of the colleges. Sixth-The amendment as drawn is carefully safeguarded against possible abuse by the following limitations: (a) It exempts only institutions of collegiate grade. (b) Such institutions can not be conducted for profit. Any institution receiving an income from students in excess of its expenses would be excluded from exemption. (c) The exempt property is limited to buildings, equipment, and grounds, with securities and income, "used exclusively for the purposes of education." Real estate held for investment or revenue will be taxed just as at present, only the educational "plant" actually in use being exempt from taxation. (d) The land which a college will hold exempt as constituting its "campus" is limited to 100 acres, thus preventing the abuse of the law by an institution holding large areas ostensibly as "campus" but actually for investment and profit. Seventh-So thoroughly convinced the lawmakers that this amendment is right and fair that it passed the last legislature with but one dissenting vote in either chamber. were A. E. CAMPBELL, State Senator Seventeenth District. LEE C. GATES, State Senator Thirty-fourth District. EXEMPTING VESSELS FROM TAXATION. Senate Constitutional Amendment 17 adding section 4 to article XIII of constitution. Exempts from taxation until and including January 1, 1935, except for state purposes, all vessels over 50 tons burden, registered at any port in this state and engaged in transportation of freight or passengers. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 17, a resolution proposing to the people of the State of California, an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, by adding a new section to article XIII thereof, to be designated as section four of said article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California, relating to the exemption of vessels engaged in commerce from taxation. Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That the legislature of the State of California, at its regular session, commencing on the sixth day of January, nineteen hundred thirteen, two thirds of all the members elected to each of the houses of said legislature voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes to the electors of the State of California, that a new section be added to article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California, to be known and designated as section four of article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California, and to read as follows: PROPOSED LAW. Section 4. All vessels of more than fifty tons 'burden registered at any port in this state engaged in the transportation of freight sengers, shall be exempt from taxation state purposes, until and including the first day of January, nineteen hundred thirty-five. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SENATE CONSTI TUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 17. Considering the many handicaps under which American shipping is now laboring, and considering also the unjust discrimination now existing under our revenue laws against any owner of a vessel loyal enough to register said vessel at some port in California, this amendment should have the hearty co-operation of all California citizens. Under the now existing revenue laws, any vessel registered from a port outside of California is exempt from taxation in this state; but if the owner of any vessel, either an individual or corporation, is patriotic enough to register said vessel from a California port, along comes the assessor and taxes him for his loyalty. This matter of exempting shipping from taxation is not a new nor an untried measure. The great State of New York has already exempted vessels from taxation for a period of 20 years, and the State of Washington now has a revenue law exempting all vessels registered from Washington ports from taxation. This Washington law goes even further in this matter, and exempts from taxation vessels under construction and all materials used therein while said vessel is in process of building. The amount of revenue which might be lost by the adoption of this amendment is very nominal, and should not be considered in the comparison with the great and immense benefit which will accrue to this state in the way of advertisement, by having all vessels registered from California ports with the name of "San Francisco," "Los Angeles," "Oakland," "San Diego," "Eureka," etc., painted on the stern of the vessel. Foreign vessels, while they now pay no taxes, are entitled to and receive equal benefits to all domestic vessels, in the matter of police protection, fire protection, and also in respect to federal, state and county fees, for pilotage, dockage, etc. Outside of the matter of advertising, it is advisable to have all vessels plying along the Pacific Coast registered from some port in California. It is impossible to estimate the indirect benefit this state will derive in the matter of rentals, purchases of supplies and similar items. By the adoption of this amendment, many vessels which are now registered from New York, Seattle and other ports foreign to California, will, as a matter of convenience, return and register from California. The experiment is certainly worth the trial, for after twenty years, the law, if unsatisfactory, automatically repeals itself. If this amendment is passed, it will be a great stimulus in the upbuilding of our harbors and river ports as well as the expansion of a large local merchant marine. THOS. F. FINN, State Senator Twenty-third District. CONDEMNATION FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. Senate Constitutional Amendment 16 adding section 20 to article XI of constitution. Authorizes state, county or municipality to condemn neighboring property within its limits additional to that actually intended for proposed improvement; declares same taken for public use; defines estate therein and manner of dealing therewith to further such improvement; permits county or municipality to condemn lands within ten miles beyond its boundaries for certain public purposes, with consent of other county or municipality if such lands lie therein; requires terms of condemnation, lease or disposal of such additional property to be prescribed by law. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 16, a resolution proposing to the people of the State of California, an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, by adding a new section to article XI thereof, to be designated as section twenty, of said article XI, of the Constitution of the State of California, relating to the taking of property for public use and additional property in excess thereof, and for the payment therefor. Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That the legislature of the State of California, at its regular session, commencing on the sixth day of January, nineteen hundred thirteen, two thirds of all the members elected to each of the houses of said legislature voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes to the qualified electors of the State of California, that a new section be added to article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, to be known and designated as section twenty of article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, and to read as follows: PROPOSED LAW. Section 20. The state, or any county, city and county, or incorporated city or town, taking or appropriating property within the limits thereof for public use for any proposed public improvement, may also take and appropriate, under the powers of eminent domain, additional adjoining or neighboring property within the limits thereof, in excess of that actually to be devoted to or occupied by the proposed improvement, and such additional property so taken shall be deemed to be taken for public use. The estate in such additional property so taken shall be a fee simple estate, and such additional property may be sold, ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SENATE CONSTI- This amendment proposes a new section to the constitution, giving the state, county and city the right to take for public purposes not only such property as may be necessary for immediate and present need, but also such as may be required for future use. Under the law as it stands to-day only such property can be taken as is required for present use, but not such as may be needed for future use. The amendment is designed to enable the state, county or city to plan and carry out public improvements on a comprehensive scale. In the establishing and laying out of public improvements and public institutions, far-sightedness demands the planning on broad enough a scale to permit of expansion and additions in the future. The need may not exist at the time property is first obtained for public use, but future growth often requires additional land. A state university when first established does not have all the departments, nor need the various buildings, that are later required. An asylum or industrial institution when first founded, and with a small number of inmates, does not need the land for buildings or for agricultural or dairy purposes that is needed later on when the institution becomes much larger. A city may plan a civic center on a far-reaching scale, with use at the present time for only a few buildings, intending in the future, as the need arises, and as the expenses can be met, to add libraries, art galleries, athletic fields, and other extensions. At the present time, the state, or county or city, in taking property can not take such as may be required for future use. The public not being able to procure adjacent and surrounding property for future needs, this adjacent property is bought by private individuals. In many instances it is taken up by speculators in the anticipation of a demand for it in the future for public purposes. When the need for it in the future does come, the additions and extensions to public institutions have to be made elsewhere, in remote and inconvenient places, or the public required to pay unreasonable and exorbitant prices. Much of the increased value of the adjoining property arises from the very fact that the state, the county or the city has taken over the original property for public purposes, and erected public buildings on it. The instant that the state, or county or city, erects its buildings, the adjacent and surrounding property is enhanced in value, which very increase in value that it has produced the public has to pay for, if later it buys this adjoining and surrounding property. Under this amendment, the public is enabled to retain this increased value or increment itself, and is not compelled to pay for the value that it itself has caused to accrue. Both to save the public from this additional cost, and to prevent the state, or county, or city from having its plans frustrated and defeated by its inability to obtain adjoining and surrounding property for future development and expansion of its parks, playgrounds and public institutions, this amendment is designed. Now that the function of government is coming to be recognized in providing for the welfare of its citizens in the broadest sense-their recreation and health, as well as their education and protection-this duty dictates the adoption of this amendment whereby far-sighted and comprehensive provision can be made in the way of public improvements, that shall be adequate for the future as well as the immediate present. HERBERT C. JONES, State Senator Twenty-eighth District. EXPOSITION CONTRIBUTION BY ALAMEDA COUNTY. Senate Constitutional Amendment 34 amending section 18 of article XI of constitution. Present section unchanged but proviso added authorizing Alameda county, at election therefor, to incur bonded indebtedness not exceeding $1,000,000, bearing interest not exceeding five per cent, bonds redeemable within forty years and salable at not less than par, proceeds payable on terms fixed by supervisors to Panama-Pacific International Exposition Company for exposition in San Francisco; authorizing special tax upon all taxable property in Alameda county to pay interest and create sinking fund for payment of said bonds. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 34, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California, an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, by amending section eighteen of article eleven thereof relating to restrictions on the power of counties, cities and other subdivisions of the state to incur indebtedness. The legislature of the State of California, at its regular session, commencing on the sixth day of January, 1913, two thirds of all of the members elected to each of the houses voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes to the qualified electors of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, by amending section eighteen of article eleven thereof. Section 1. Section eighteen of article eleven is hereby amended to read as follows: PROPOSED LAW. Section 18. No county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district, shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two thirds of the qualified electors thereof, voting at an election to be held for that purpose, nor unless before or at the time of incurring such indebtedness provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due, and also provision to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof on or before maturity, which shall not exceed forty years from the time of contracting the same; provided, however, that the city and county of San Francisco may at any time pay the unpaid claims, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent per annum, for materials furnished to and work done for said city and county during the forty-first, forty-second, fortythird, forty-fourth, and fiftieth fiscal years, and for unpaid teachers' salaries for the fiftieth fiscal year, out of the income and revenue of any succeeding year or years, the amount to be paid in full of said claims not to exceed in the aggregate the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, and that no statute of limitations shall apply in any manner to these claims; and provided, further, that the city of Vallejo, of Solano county, may pay its existing indebtedness, incurred in the construction of its waterworks, whenever two thirds of the electors thereof, voting at an election held for that purpose, shall so decide, and that no statute of limitations shall apply in any manner. Any indebtedness or liability incurred contrary to this provision, with the exceptions hereinbefore recited, shall be void. The city and county of San Francisco, the city of San Jose, and the town of Santa Clara may make provision for a sinking fund, to pay the principal of any indebtedness incurred, or to be hereafter incurred by it, to commence at a time after the incurring of such indebtedness of no more than a period of one fourth of the time of maturity of such indebtedness, which shall not exceed seventy-five years from the time of contracting the same. Any indebtedness incurred contrary to any provi |