Municipal Corporation — Los Angeles — Acquisition oe Electric Works—Bonded Indebtedness.—Under subdivision 7 of section 2 of article I of the charter of the city of Los Angeles (Stats. 1889, p. 457), as amended March 12, 1909, (Stats. 1909, p. 1291), the city has the power to establish, operate, and maintain electric works wherewith to supply the inhabitants of the city with electricity for private use, and to incur a bonded indebtedness therefor.

Id.—Electricity for Motive Power—Municipal Function—The supplying of electricity for motive power is a public service in which a municipal corporation may engage.

Id.—Constitutional Inhibition on Acquisition of Public Utilities.— There is no provision of the state constitution which either expressly or by implication forbids the acquisition, ownership, or operation of any such public utilities by a municipality, or prohibits the granting to a municipality of the power to acquire, own, and operate them.

Id.—Resolution Declaring Purpose of Bonded Indebtedness—Acquiring and Constructing Described Improvement—Engaging in Business Beyond Municipality.—A resolution of the city council declaring the purpose of a bonded indebtedness to be that “of acquiring and constructing a certain revenue producing municipal improvement, to wit, works for generating and distributing electricity for the purpose of supplying said city and its inhabitants with light, heat, and power, including the acquisition of lands, water-rights, rights of way, machinery, apparatus and other property, and the construction of electric generating works, sub-stations, transmission and distributing lines, conduits and other works necessary therefor,” does not disclose any intention on the part of the municipality of selling surplus electric power to consumers outside of its boundaries.

Id.—Secret Intent to Engage in Business Beyond City Limits— Validity of Bonds Not Affected.—A secret or avowed intention of the city to engage in the business of selling electric power to consumers beyond its municipal boundaries, even if without authority, would not affect the validity of bonds authorized and issued solely for the legitimate purpose of supplying electricity to the city and its inhabitants.

Id.—Supplying Electric Power for Private Use—Dedication to Public Use.—A dedication of electric works and the product thereof to the purpose of supplying electric power to the inhabitants of the city for their private use is a dedication to a public use.

Id.—Franchise—Construction in Favor of Public.—Grants of franchises and special privileges by the state to private persons or corporations are to be construed most strongly in favor of the public, and where the privilege claimed is doubtful nothing is to be taken by mere implication as against public rights.

Id.—Non-Exclusive Franchise—Municipality May Engage in Similar Business.—Where a grant of such franchise by the state or some municipality thereof is not, by its terms, made an exclusive franchise, and the city in which it is to be exercised is not, by the law or ordinance granting it, forbidden or prevented from competing, the city may establish its own works for the same purpose and engage in the same public service within the city, although it may thereby injure or practically destroy the business of the holder of such franchise.

Id.—Constitutional Grant of Use of Streets—Grant Not Exclusive as against MUNICIPALITY.—Section 19 of article XI of the state constitution, providing that in any city where there are no public works owned and controlled by the municipality for supplying the same with water or artificial light, any individual or corporation . . . shall have the privilege of using the public streets and of laying down pipes and conduits therein, so far as may be necessary for introducing into and supplying such city and its inhabitants either with gaslight or other illuminating light, or with fresh water for domestic and all other purposes, upon the condition that the municipal government shall have the right to regulate the charges thereof, cannot be construed to grant an exclusive franchise in the streets, or to prevent a city from establishing and operating such public waterworks or lightworks, notwithstanding the fact that private persons or corporations are using the streets in operating works of the same kind.

Id.—Construction of Constitution — Mandatory and Prohibitory Provisions..—The statement in section 22 of article I of the state constitution, that its provisions are mandatory and prohibitory, does not require a different interpretation of section 19 of article XI. It refers to the effect, not to the meaning, of the constitutional provisions, and declares that they are imperative and paramount, according to their true meaning, ascertained by the rules of construction otherwise applicable thereto.

Id.—Cities Having no Municipal Works—Acceptance of Constitutional Offer to Use Streets.—The fact that the constitutional right to use the streets is offered only in cities having no municipal works, raises no implication or inference that the city shall not establish municipal works after the constitutional offer to private parties has'been accepted and used.

Id.—Constitution Does Not Grant Eight to Engage in Business-Cities Acquire Power to Administer Public Utilities from State.—Section 19 of article XI of the constitution does not purport to grant the right to engage in the business of furnishing water, gas, or electricity for general use. It presupposes such power or right, and merely gives the company or person having it the privilege of ■using the public streets as a way for its conduits. Cities have no inherent power to engage in administering such public utilities. They obtain such power by grant from the state.

Id.—Cities Not Prohibited by Constitution from Administering Public Utilities.—There is nothing in the language of section 19, or in the object which it was intended to accomplish—namely, to prevent the giving of the exclusive use of the streets to private persons or companies—which indicates that it was intended by that section to qualify or limit the power of the legislature to confer upon cities the power to engage in such business, or any business properly within the scope of municipal purposes.

Id.—Question Submitted to Voters—Form of Ballot—Single Purpose of Question—Certainty and Detail of Question.—The question, as printed on the ballot and used at the bond election, as follows: “Shall the city of Los Angeles incur a bonded debt of $3,500,000 for the purpose of acquiring and constructing a certain revenue producing municipal improvement, to wit, works for generating and distributing electricity for the purpose of supplying said city and its inhabitants with light, heat and power, including the acquisition of lands, water-rights, rights of way, machinery, apparatus and other property, and the construction of electric generating works, sub-stations, transmission and distributing lines, conduits and other works necessary therefor,” specifies but a single object of purpose, within the meaning of the requirements of the constitution (see. 18, art. XI), and of the Bond Act (Stats. 1907, p. 609), and does so with sufficient detail and certainty.

Id.—Location of Proposed Works — Designation as within City Limits.—There is no provision of the Bond Act, or of the constitution, which requires that the question shall state the precise location of the works to be provided out of the fund voted, or that they should be within the city limits.

Id.—“Acquiring and Constructing” Improvement :—Singularity of Purpose.—The expression, “acquiring and constructing a certain revenue producing municipal improvement,” particularly described, is not necessarily a statement of a dual purpose, and does not indicate the purpose of acquiring two systems, one by purchase and the other by construction. In connection with the context, it means the acquisition of but one system, including the purchase of such property and the erection of such structures as may be necessary to accomplish that purpose.

Id.—Time of Payment of Bonds—Date to be Fixed by City Council. —The proposition submitted to the voters need not state when the bonds shall become payable.. Section 5 of the Bond Act provides that the city council shall determine that question, and contemplates that it may be done either before or after the vote of the people is taken on the issuance of the bonds, and without action thereon by the people.

Id.—Estimate of Cost of Improvement—Statement of in Resolution and Ordinance.—A declaration in the original resolution of intention to establish the improvement and in the ordinance calling the election, that the estimated cost of the proposed improvement was three million five hundred thousand dollars, is a sufficient compliance with section 2 of the Bond Act, requiring that such ordinance shall recite “the estimated cost of the proposed public improvements.” It will be presumed from such recital that the city council had previously made the estimate stated.

Id.—Printing Title of Ordinance in Black-Face Type.—Where the ordinance calling the election, as published, was preceded by its title, which clearly described its purport, the fact that such title was not printed in black-face type, as directed by section 4459 of the Political Code, is too unimportant to warrant a holding that the proceedings were thereby vitiated.

Id.—Irregularities in Municipal Bonds Validated by Act op 1911. —The act of March 21, 1911, validated all bond issues irregularly authorized by any municipality if they had at the election called for that purpose received a two-thirds vote of the electors voting thereon. Id.—Amount op Municipal Indebtedness — Merely Voting Bonds Does Not Create or Increase Debt.—The vote of the electors upon a proposition to issue bonds for municipal improvements does not ipso faoto create a debt against the city fo the amount authorized. The indebtedness of the city is not thereby increased. The increase occurs when the bonds are issued and become valid obligations in the hands of the holders—that is, when they are sold and delivered to the purchaser.

Id.—Extension op Limit op Indebtedness after Bonds Are Voted and before Issuance—Validity op Issue,—If, at the time the bonds of a municipality are issued and become lawful debts, they do not raise the indebtedness above the legal limit, as then established, they will not be deemed void because of the fact that' at the time the vote authorizing them was taken the amount voted would have exceeded the then existing limit.

Id.—Amendment op Charter—Judicial Notice.—The amendment of March 6, 1911, to the charter of the city of Los Angeles, which was approved by the legislature on March 20, 1911, has the effect of a law and is a matter of judicial knowledge.