The opinion
CURTIS, J.
I dissent. The most common rule of statutory interpretation is the rule that a statute clear and unambiguous on its face need not and cannot be interpreted by a court, and only those statutes which are ambiguous and of doubtful meaning are subject to the process of statutory interpretation. (Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., vol. 2, see. 4502, p. 316; 23 Cal.Jur., sec. 109, p. 730.) The act here in question is plainly mandatory in form. As appears from its pertinent sections as quoted in the main opinion, the board of trustees of the pension fund was thereby “created,” its powers and duties were all prescribed therein, and nothing was left to be done by the governing body of the county or municipality except to levy the tax as directed therein and make other specified payments to the fund. To evidence in unmistakable terms its intent, the Legislature consistently used throughout the act the imperative auxiliary “shall.” As is said in 57 Corpus Juris, page 548: “In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term ‘shall’ is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public *657 interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere permission. ’ ’
While it does not appear that the precise character of the act now in question has been heretofore adjudicated in this state, its mandatory form has been impliedly recognized in decisions establishing the impropriety of a variant pension plan adopted by a municipality when the “legislature created insurance and pension funds” by such act (Frisbee v. O’Connor, 119 Cal.App. 601, 604 [ 7 P.2d 316 ]) and referring to the act as “made to apply to all ‘counties, cities and counties, cities, and towns of the state’ to avoid the constitutional inhibition against special legislation.” (Simmons v. Board of Police etc. Commrs., 48 Cal.App.2d 682, 684 [ 121 P.2d 39 ].) Any language in the case of Klench v. Board of Pension Fd. Commrs., 79 Cal.App. 171 [ 249 P. 46 ], as cited in the main opinion herein, purporting to distinguish the act as mere enabling legislation, has no special significance here since the action' of the municipality there concerned, in its prior enactment of an ordinance embracing the act in its entirety, operated to eliminate from the court’s consideration any point as to statutory interpretation. But withal, there was no holding in the Klench case that such formal procedure of acceptance on the part of the city was necessary to make the act applicable thereto. Whether or not the administrative officials of other cities and towns have regarded the act as only a permissive statute is of no consequence, for their construction, no matter how long prevailing, cannot change its clear language or alter its plain meaning. (23 Cal.Jur., sec. 152, p. 776; Hodge v. McCall, 185 Cal. 330, 334 [ 197 P. 86 ].)
Nor does the act as mandatory legislation violate article XI, section 12, of the state Constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from imposing taxes for municipal purposes. While it is conceded that the duties of police officers are primarily local and municipal, in maintaining law and order in their respective communities, it is generally known that many of the local police officers spend much of their time and effort in performing duties in which the state at large is interested. The general pension plan prescribed by the act in question was intended to promote, and undoubtedly would promote if its *658 mandatory language were given effect, a better police service for the entire state. To the extent such statute has a state as distinguished from a purely local purpose, it occupies an intermediate field of legislation and does not come within the constitutional ban in its contemplation of the following test as to “municipal purposes”: Is it for strictly local uses, from which the municipality and its inhabitants alone would benefit, or is it for a purpose in which the entire state is concerned or will benefit 1 Upon such premise the case of San Francisco v. Liverpool etc. Insurance Co., 74 Cal. 113 [ 15 P. 380 , 5 Am. St. Rep. 425 ], cited in the main opinion herein, is distinguished in City of Los Angeles v. Riley, 6 Cal.2d 621, 623-624 [ 59 P.2d 137 , 106 A.L.R. 903 ], to the effect that while the Legislature is without power to interfere in the management of purely municipal affairs, such matters as are of public and state-wide concern are properly subject to its control. In line with this observation the conclusion is inescapable that to the extent the police forces of the various cities and towns serve a state purpose, the Legislature could with propriety pass the act here involved and not violate article XI, section 12, of the state Constitution.
For the foregoing reasons I think that the petitioner correctly sought a writ of mandate to enforce his right to the benefits conferred by the act in question, and that the judgment of the trial court.in so holding should be affirmed.
Shenk, J., concurred.