Martin

—This action is in some measure connected with that of Fragley v. Phelan, involving the validity of the freeholders’ charter, just decided. (Ante, p. 383.)

In the complaint of the plaintiffs it is stated: “That this-action is not designed or intended to impeach the validity of" the said charter in any respect, other than to have it adjudged. herein that the provisions of said charter concerning the county-officers of said city and county of San Francisco are in open: and flagrant conflict with the constitution of the state of California, are an invasion of and an infringement upon the sovereignty of said state, are a revolutionary usurpation of power, and are a palpable violation of the law adopted by the legislature of said state, in obedience to the constitution, and entitled ‘An act to establish a uniform system of county and township government,’ approved April 1, 1897.” A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the court below, and, plaintiffs declining to amend, judgment was entered in favor of the: defendants, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The provisions of the freeholders’ charter concerning the-so-called county officers, in whose behalf this action is…

—I concur in the judgment solely on the ground that the constitutional amendment—section 8-|—defi-nitely settles the question involved in favor of the contention of respondents.