Farrell

We concur in the judgment, on the ground that, by providing that additional policemen might be appointed by the city authorities, the legislature attempted to do indirectly, by a special statute, what it was forbidden to do directly by subdivision 28 of section 25 of article 4 of the constitution. I do not understand, however, that this point is decided against the appellant in Ford v. Board, 81 Cal. 19 . We do not wish to be understood as holding that the legislature may not amend a special charter of a city, such as the city of Sacramento is acting under, by a special statute, except where, as in this case, the law enacted is forbidden by the constitution for other reasons.

Action for a writ of mandate to the board of trustees and others, above mentioned, to compel them to levy a special tax to raise a sum of money to pay the salaries of policemen, etc. Judgment was rendered for the petitioners, and the respondent appealed.

The city of Sacramento is a municipal corporation, organized in 1863, under an act of the legislature. (Stats. 1863, pp. 415 et seq.) The board of trustees is, under that act, the governing body of the corporation. (Stats. 1863, sec. 2, p. 416), and by it the board was invested with power to create and establish a city police, to prescribe their duties and compensation, and to provide for the regulation and government of the same; to *412 create the office of chief of police, and elect such chief and eight,policemen. (Stats. 1863, sec. 2, subds. 1, 9, pp. 416, 417.) In 1872 an act was passed amendatory of and supplementary to the act of 1863, by which the office of chief of police was created, and a board of police commissioners. (Stats. 1871-72, secs. 1, 6, pp. 243, 244.) This board was to consist of the president of the board of trustees, the chief of police, and the police judge. (Sec. 6.) The board was authorized, immediately…