The statute of California approved April 15, 1880, limiting to
four years the terms of office of the commissioners required by the
Act of Congress of June 30, 1864, c. 184, 13 Stat. 325, "to be
appointed by the executive of California" to manage the Yosemite
Valley and Mariposa Big Tree Grove, is not repugnant to that act,
and may be followed by him in making his appointments.
This is an action in the nature of a writ of
quo
warranto instituted by the State of California in the Superior
Court for Sacramento County to determine the right of Ashburner to
hold the office of member of the board of commissioners to "manage
the Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Big Tree Grove." The complaint
charges that he, on May 1, 1880, usurped the office and has since
unlawfully withheld the same and wrongfully continued to discharge
the duties thereof. This allegation the defendant denies.
The case was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of
facts, from which it appears that in pursuance of the act of
Congress, entitled "An Act authorizing a grant to the State of
California of the Yosemite Valley, and the land embracing the
Mariposa Big Tree Grove," approved June 30, 1864, and an act of the
legislature of California, entitled
"An Act to accept the grant by the United States government to
the State of California of the Yosemite Valley and Big Tree Grove,
and to organize the board of commissioners, and to fully empower
them to carry out the objects of the grant, and fulfill the
purposes of the trust,"
approved April 2, 1866, the governor of the state appointed the
defendant one of the commissioners provided for in said acts, and
that at the time of the passage of the act of the legislature,
entitled "An Act to provide for the management of the Yosemite
Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove," approved April 15, 1880,
he was acting as such commissioner; that on April 19, 1880, after
the adoption of "Senate concurrent resolution No. 20, relating to
appointment of eight commissioners to manage the Yosemite Valley
and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove," adopted Feb. 17, 1880, and the
passage of the act of April 15, 1880, the governor, in
pursuance
Page 103 U. S. 576
of said concurrent resolution and said act, and by virtue of the
authority thereby conferred upon him, appointed certain persons, of
whom the defendant was not one, to be such commissioners, and each
of them accepted the appointment, took, subscribed, and filed an
oath of office in the manner and form prescribed by law for the
officers of the government of the state; that more than four years
had elapsed after the appointment of the defendant and before the
passage of the act of April 15, 1880; that the defendant was not
reappointed as such commissioner; that each of the commissioners
appointed April 19, 1880, and the board by them composed, duly
demanded of the defendant that he surrender the office and cease to
discharge the duties thereof; but that he refused and still refuses
to comply with the demand, it having been made after the
qualification of the commissioners and before the commencement of
this action; that the defendant has, ever since the passage of the
Act of April 15, 1880, continued to discharge the duties of
commissioner, and has during all that time claimed, and still
claims, that he is by law entitled to be a commissioner, and a
member of the board as organized and existing at the time of the
passage of that act, and to exercise and discharge all the powers,
authority, and duties of commissioner, and of a member of the
board, he claiming and insisting that the board and the members
thereof continue to be and are such board, notwithstanding the
passage of that act and the appointments made by the governor April
19, 1880.
The provisions of the Act of June 30, 1864, c. 184, 13 Stat.
325, are set forth in the opinion of the Court.
Sect. 1 and 5 of the statute of California approved April 15,
1880, are as follows:
"SEC. 1. The Governor of the state of California, and the eight
other commissioners appointed by him in accordance with the act of
Congress, entitled 'An Act authorizing a grant to the state of
California of the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove,'
approved June thirteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, shall
constitute a board to manage such premises, and the governor shall
be
ex-officio member of the commission and president of
the board. The term of office of the commissioners shall be four
years,
provided that the eight first appointed shall so
classify themselves, that
Page 103 U. S. 577
four shall go out of office in two years, and four in four
years, and thereafter the appointments shall be made four each two
years. Vacancies occurring in said commission from death,
resignation, or other causes, shall be filed by appointment, by the
governor, to serve for the unexpired term only."
"SEC. 5. The said commission shall, immediately after
organizing, demand from the commissioners now acting, all the
books, papers, and documents of any and every kind, pertaining to
the business of the board, and it shall be the duty of the
commissioners now acting to immediately comply with said
demand."
The superior court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant,
and that judgment having been reversed by the supreme court of the
state, Ashburner sued out this writ of error.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
By the Act of June 30, 1864, c. 184, the United states granted
to the State of California the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big
Tree Grove,
"with the stipulation, nevertheless, that the state shall accept
this grant upon the express condition that the premises shall be
held for public use, resort, and recreation, and shall be
inalienable for all time; . . . the premises to be managed by the
governor of the state and eight other commissioners, to be
appointed by the executive of California, who shall receive no
compensation for their services."
13 Stat. 325. In 1866 the State of California, by an act of the
legislature, accepted this grant "upon the conditions,
reservations, and stipulations contained in the act of Congress."
There cannot be a doubt that, in this way, these interesting
localities were, by the joint act of the United states and
California, devoted to a special public use. The title was
transferred to California for the benefit of the public as a place
of resort and recreation. Without the consent of Congress the
property can never be put to any other use, and the state cannot
part with the ownership. It may be called a trust, but only in the
sense that all public property held by public corporations for
public uses is a trust.
Page 103 U. S. 578
It must be kept for the use to which it was by the terms of the
grant appropriated. If it shall ever be in any respect diverted
from this use the United states may be called on to determine
whether proceedings shall be instituted in some appropriate form to
enforce the performance of the conditions contained in the act of
Congress, or to vacate the grant. So long as the state keeps the
property, it must abide by the stipulation, on the faith of which
the transfer of title was made.
The management of the property was entrusted by the United
states to the governor of the state and eight other commissioners,
to be appointed by him. This is one of the conditions contained in
the act of Congress to which the state gave its assent when it
accepted the grant. The state cannot commit the management to any
other board than this, neither can it control his discretion in
making the appointments; but we see no reason why the state may not
set a reasonable limitation on the time a commissioner shall hold
his place when appointed. This would be really nothing more than
directing that the governor revise his appointments at stated
periods. He will be left free to select whom he pleases, and by
reappointments to continue old incumbents in their places if so
inclined. His discretion in this respect would be in no manner
interfered with. This, in our opinion, is all that was done by the
act of April 15, 1880. The term of the office of a commissioner was
fixed at four years, but the power of appointment was left
exclusively with the governor, in whom, under the constitution, is
vested the supreme executive power of the state. The length of the
term is that prescribed by the constitution for state offices, and
is certainly not unreasonable.
That Congress expected the state would, by appropriate
legislation, aid the commissioners in the performance of their
duties, and prescribe reasonable rules and regulations, not
inconsistent with the general purposes of the grant, for their
government in the administration of the trust, is abundantly shown
by the fact that the acceptance of the grant was considered
sufficient, notwithstanding the act of the legislature by which it
was done contained various provisions of such a character. Among
other things, it was enacted that the commissioners
Page 103 U. S. 579
should be known in law as "The Commissioners to manage the
Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove," and by that name
they and their successors might sue and be sued; that they should
have power to make and adopt all rules, regulations, and bylaws for
their own government and the government, improvement, and
preservation of the property, not inconsistent with the
Constitution of the United states or of California, or with the act
making the grant, or any law of Congress or the legislature; that
they should hold their first meeting at such time and place as
should be designated by the governor; that a majority should
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; that they
should appoint a president and secretary as well as a guardian of
the property, and that they should report through the governor to
the legislature at every regular session. All this was consistent
with the conditions and reservations of the grant, and evidently in
aid of what Congress intended should be done. So, too, in our
opinion, is the act of 1880. If, as is contended here, and was held
by the dissenting judge below, when the commissioners were once
appointed, the power of the governor over appointments was
exhausted, until a vacancy occurred by death or resignation, and
neither he nor the legislature could remove a commissioner for
cause or otherwise, it is easy to see that unless some provision
was made to guard against the accidents of disabilities incident to
a life tenure of office, great embarrassments might arise in the
management of this important property. It is entirely unnecessary
to decide whether these commissioners are state officers or state
commissioners within the meaning of those terms as used in the
constitutions of the state adopted in 1848 and 1879, and,
therefore, within the constitutional provision limiting the terms
of such offices; but we are of the opinion, and decide, that a law
of the state which limits the term of office of a commissioner
under one appointment to a reasonable time is not repugnant to the
act of Congress, and may be followed by the governor in making his
appointments. The plaintiff in error had been in office longer than
the limited period, when the governor, in the exercise of his
discretion, appointed another person in his place. Upon this
appointment he should have surrendered his office. It follows that
the judgment of the court below was right.
Judgment affirmed.
