§ 1. ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. Inalienable rights. § 2. Political power. § 8. 9. Offenses, how prosecuted. Liberty of speech and freedom of the press- § 10. Popular assemblies. § 16. Laws prohibited-Bills of attainder, ex post § 17. Rights of foreign residents. § 18. Slavery prohibited. § 19. Searches and seizures, restriction on. § 20. Treason defined. § 21. Privileges and immunities of citizens. Provisions of constitution construed. § 23. Rights retained by the people. § 22. $ 24. Property qualification not required. Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. 88 ost PROPERTY.—The right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is one of the primary objects of government, is guaranteed by the constitution, and cannot be impaired by the legislature. (Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1.) The right of protecting property is not the mere right to protect it by individual force, but the right to protect it by the law of the land, and the force of the body politic. (Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1.) The right of property antedates all constitutions. This right is invaded if the owner is not at liberty to contract with others respecting the use to which he may subject his property, or the manner in which he may enjoy it. (Stimson M. Co. v. Braun, 136 Cal. 122, 68 Pac. 481.) A statute declaring that all contracts for the construction of buildings, with certain exceptions, must provide for the payment of the contract price in money, is in violation of this section. (Stimson M. Co. v. Braun, 136 Cal. 122, 68 Pac. 481.) The right to acquire property is the right to use the proper means to attain the end; and the use of such means cannot be prohibited by the legislature, unless the peace and safety of the state require it. (Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502.) An act requiring a party to pay for improvements put upon his land by a trespasser, against his will, is void. (Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1.) So an act altering or destroying the nature or tenure of estates is void. (Dewey v. Lambier, 7 Cal. 347.) 66 The provision of section 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a failure to comply with the section by filing a good and sufficient bond with the building contract in an amount equal to at least twenty-five per cent. of the contract price shall render the owner and contractor jointly and severally liable in damages to any and all materialmen, and subcontractors entitled to liens upon property affected by said contract," is an unreasonable restraint upon the owner of the property in the use thereof, and is an unreasonable restriction upon the power to make contracts, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. (Gibbs v. Tally, 133 Cal. 373; San Francisco L. Co. v. Bibb, 139 Cal. 193, 73 Pac. 864; Montague v. Furness, 145 Cal. 205, 78 Pac. 640.) An act authorizing the probate court to order a sale of the property of a decedent, when it is for the best interest of the estate, is valid. (Estate of Porter, 129 Cal. 86, 61 Pac. 659.) But such an act cannot affect estates of decedents who died before the passage of the act. (Brenham v. Story, 39 Cal. 179; Estate of Packer, 125 Cal. 396, 58 Pac. 59; Estate of Freud, 131 Cal. 667.) An ordinance requiring street-car transfers to be issued and delivered within the street-cars from which the transfer is made, and received only within the car to which it is made, and forbidding any person to whom a transfer is issued to give away, transfer, or sell the same, is not in violation of this section. (Ex parte Lorenzen, 128 Cal. 431, 61 Pac. 68.) An act requiring litigants to take the oath of allegiance is not in violation of this section. (Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 293.) An act making it unlawful to buy or sell quail is not in violation of this section. (Ex parte Kenneke, 136 Cal. 527, 69 Pac. 261.) A statute exempting a municipal corporation from liability for damages for injuries sustained by any person on its graded streets, but making the officers of the city liable therefor, is valid. (Parsons v. San Francisco, 23 Cal. 462.) Business. The legislature cannot forbid the lawful pursuit of a lawful occupation on one day of the week any more than it can forbid it altogether. (Ex parte. Newman, 9 Cal. 502. But see Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 678.) But this provision does not prevent the legislature from prohibiting the conducting of offensive trades within the limits of a city. (Ex parte Shrader, 33 Cal. 279.) So an ordinance making it unlawful for any person to conduct a laundry within certain limits without a certificate from the health officer as to its sanitary condition, and a certificate from the fire wardens as to the condition of the heating appliances, and forbidding the operation of any laundry between 10 P. M. and 6 A. M., or on Sunday, is valid. (Ex parte An ordinance making it unlawful to play any instrument, etc., in any saloon, etc., after midnight, and for any female to be in any saloon, etc., after midnight, does not violate this provision. (Ex parte Smith & Keating, 38 Cal. 702.) A statute limiting the compensation of employment agencies is invalid. (Ex parte Dickey, 144 Cal. 234, 77 Pac. 924.) When a lawful business is of a beneficial character, and not dangerous to the public, it cannot be subjected to police regulation. (Ex parte Dickey, 144 Cal. 234, 77 Pac. 924.) It is always a judicial question whether any particular regulation of the constitutional right of the citizen to engage in an innocent and useful business is a valid exercise of the legislative power. (Ex parte Hayden, 147 Cal. 649, 82 Pac. 315.) An act making it unlawful to issue trading stamps and coupons is unconstitutional. (Ex parte Drexel, 147 Cal. 763, 82 Pac. 429.) The legislature has the constitutional right to modify the common law by taking away the revocable nature of the license granted by a ticket to a place of public amusement. (Greenberg v. Western Turf Assn., 148 Cal. 126.) Sunday laws.-In Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, it was held that an act making it unlawful to transact any business upon the Sabbath, except certain designated ones, was in violation of this provision, on the ground that the legislature can no more forbid the lawful pursuit of a lawful occupation on one day of the week than it can forbid it altogether. This decision was overruled in Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 678, and Ex parte Bird, 19 Cal. 130. An act making it a misdemeanor to keep open a barber-shop on Sundays or other holidays is in violation of this section. (Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 Pac. 803.) Life, liberty, etc.-A law imposing the death penalty upon a person undergoing a life sentence, who with malice aforethought, commits an assault upon another with a deadly weapon, or by any means likely to produce bodily injury, is valid. (In re Finley, 1 Cal. App. 198, 81 Pac. 1041.) Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. THE PEOPLE.-The people are such as are born upon the soil, and such foreigners as may elect to assume the obligations of citizens by naturalization. Those who are not of the people have no share in political power; and, therefore, an alien is not eligible to an office in this state. (Walther v. Rabolt, 30 Cal. 185.) Sec. 3. The state of California is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. AMERICAN UNION.-The United States constitution is the supreme law of the land. (U. S. Const., art. 6, sec. 2; Prigg v. Commonwealth, 16 Pet. 628; New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43; Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366; Ex parte Romaine, 23 Cal. 585.) The object of the United States constitution was to establish a government which, to the extent of its powers, should be supreme within its sphere of action. (Dobbins v. Commrs. of Erie Co., 16 Pet. 435; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 520; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 44; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.) The constitution of the United States is a part of the organic law of each state. (Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366; Ex parte Romaine, 23 Cal. 585.) This section does not have the effect to make the various provisions of the constitution of the United |