Bourn

This is an original proceeding, /i wherein the petitioner asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the defendants, as members of the state board of examiners, commanding them to allow his claim against the state for the sum of ten thousand dollars, in accordance with the provisions of an act of the legislature, the first section of which, and the only one necessary to a proper understanding of this case, is as follows: —

The petition sets forth the circumstances under which petitioner lost his arm, but which need not be referred to here, as we have held, in the case of Stevenson v. Caigan, 91 Cal. 649 , that the constitutionality of a statute must be determined by the court from what appears on its face, when considered with reference to matters judi- ' cially noticed by the court.

The defendants have demurred to the petition, upon the general ground that the act under which petitioner claims is unconstitutional under sections 31 and 32 of article IV. of the constitution, which in effect provide, among other things, that the legislature shall have no power to make any gift of any public money or thing of value to any individual, or to grant any extra compensation…

I dissent. In my opinion, the word “gift” was not used in section 31, article IV.,of the constitution in a sense broad enough to include compensation to a servant of the state for loss of life or limb in the discharge of his duties. Nor do I think such compensation is to be regarded as extra compensation for services, within the prohibition of the succeeding section of the same article. .