Weed

argued that by the Act of 1876 the Legislature did not take away from the Board of Supervisors the power which it before possessed of cleaning the streets in such mode and manner as it desired.

J. M. Cog!dan, also for the Appellants.

The rule of construction to be applied would seem to be that the statute should be construed so as to carry into effect the true intent and meaning of the Legislature; and that the word may in a statute should be construed must only in those cases where the Legislature intended to impose a positive duty, and not in those in which it intended to give a mere discretionary power. (Powers v. Sonoma Co. 32 Cal. 66 ; Miner v. Mechanics' Panic, etc., 1 Peters, 64 ; The Newberg Turnpike Co. v. Miller, 5 J. C. K. 112; Malcom v. Rogers, 5 Cowen, 108.)

W. C. Burnett, for the Despondent.

Delos Lake, also for the Despondent.

The reargument has satisfied us that the Act of April 3rd, 1876, was intended simply to confer on the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco the power to inaugurate the system therein provided for, at their option, and not to deprive them of any powers with respect to street or sewer cleaning, which they already…