Railroad Commission v. Riley

In Railroad Commission v. Riley (1923) 192 Cal. 54, the California Supreme Court addressed whether California Constitution, former article IV, section 34, impliedly repealed a statute that had created a special fund for the use of the Railroad Commission, and financed from the collection of fees. The Railroad Commission sought a writ of mandate when the state Controller declined to deposit fees in the fund following the adoption of former article IV, section 34. ( 192 Cal. at pp. 54-55, 58.) In granting the writ, the court in Railroad Commission concluded nothing in California Constitution, former article IV, section 34, barred the fund's existence, citing the principle that "repeals by implication are not favored and are recognized only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between two or more existing legislative enactments." ( Railroad Commission v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. at p. 57.) On this matter, the Railroad Commission court placed special emphasis on the requirement in former article IV, section 34, that 6 the Governor should submit a budget identifying proposed expenditures " 'provided by existing law.' " (192 Cal. at pp. 57-58.)