The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-12-05

Wnen the Dill IS pending, may deem II expedlent
TO dispense with this rulen Four.ffth OF the
article ~ Of our Constitution, is composed of l0l
members, four ffths Of l0l are so and four ffths
but an so and fcur-fths vote is impossible there.
fore 81 votes are the four6fhs of the house. think
there can be doubt as to mysnumericsl interpreta-
tioniof the words four-fifhs Of the house. If there
should be, then to show that the court is correct
/ would refer to article 80 of the Constitution,
which says, "Not less than a majority of the
members Of each house shall form quorum to
transact business" Now majority OF lOl is 81.
Whenever, from the journals of the house, it ap-
pears that at any session of the house 81 members
OF the house were not present, there was no quo
rum; and either absent members were sent for to
complete the quorum or the house adjourned;
therefore, In pdr1 Dldtertd. the same language,
the same words, say that four.iiths OF the house
composed OF lOl members are 81 members just az
majority of the house composed of l0l members
Is 81 members. So much for that part OF the ar
gpment.
by reference to the journals of the House we
find. at page la, Mr.. Carr, of New Orleans
moved that Senate bill No. 20 be taken up, THAT
No. 20 was then the number of the bill wnich is
now numbered "a, and the unconstitutonslity of
which the court 10 proceeding to SNOWY Carried
on motion OF Mr.. Carr, OF Orleans.n The reading
of the bill in detail was dispensed with. The bill
was placed upon its first reading. Mr.. Morey
moved to suspend the constitutional rules, to
place the bill on its second reading. "Rules not
suspended" BY referring to page l43 we fad
that the number of members present at the time
Of these proceedings was sixty.seven Nov in
order TO dispense with the reading Of the bill in
DETAIL on It's hrst reading under article AZ, Just
quoted, II required eighty-one votes. How, then,
can the journal Of the House, in the same breath,
say that the reading Of the bill ia detail was dis.
pensed with.
As an absolute truth, unoontrovertible fact,
which does not depend upon the mere wording of
phrase, when it evidences the fact that only 81
members voted on that question, whereas the arti-
Gle AZ OF the Constitution required vote of at
least 81 votes on the side 10 order to estab-
lsh, as truth, that the reading of the bill in de-
tail had been dispensed with-the say so of the
reporter OF the House cannot make that so, which
the court has demonstrated to have been imposs!-
Bile, on account OF the want of a sufficient number
of members present. Again, another fact which
Is apparent from the journals of the House is that
the greatest number of members present az any
one time was 81, the average attendance was 20
never more-and that average is more than
fair.
But does the subsequent phrase OF the reporter
g the bill was placed its first reading" show
compliance with article AZ? Evidently no. For
there was no motion made to reconsider the vote
previously cast, dispensing the bill from being
read in detail. Therefore, if there was any 6rss
reading of the bill it was first reading by title.
as Will show by following the path of this bill
through the House. Now, is the reading by title
Of bill, and that too the first reading, a reading
mentioned? Undoubtedly no. How can the
members know of the contents of the bill! How
can free discussion take place as contemplated in
that article? But you may say a member may
call for the reading. That is so but it will be
refused to him; in this case by vote of 66 votes
be voting in the affirmative, making the 9th vote
SO the reporter of the House will state whereas
The Constitution provides that il is only BY vote
Of 81 members that he can be denied the privilege
Of having the bill read.
Thus for the first reading according az Won
give value to the words used by the reporter ia
The journal of the House but the court thinks
hat 1t has conclusvely demonstrated that though
he reporter In the journal says the bill was read
It'll It never was read, or at least, not read in
he manner provided for by article AZ of the Con-
titution.
We pass to page l46 of the journal of the
House. There the language is more clear:
Mr.. Carr, of New Orleans, moved TO suspend
he rules TO take up Senate bill No. 20, metro.
'olitan police bill. Mr.. Noble, of Orleans called
or the yeas and nays, which were ordered, aud
esulted ss follows: Yeas 81, nays IL. Rule
us pended
This, the court thinks applies to the rules Of the
touse and not to the constitutional article Az and
therefore, the suspension was legal.
But the Journal of the House proceeds: "On
notion OF Mr.. Carr, of Orleans, the bill was
.laoed on ito srvVHd reading by title" NOW, Is
hat the reading contemplated by the article AZ
nd, IN order TO have that bill read in that man.
ecessary!
The benefit of those two readings, evidenced
y the act itself, in which section 46 repeats Sec
on To- and section 40 repeats section II. the only
hing that surprises the court. after such a read
'g, is that sections 81, Sc, 55 81 So So and so |
up to section 2, do not repeat section l.
Section a is unconstitutional again ia this that |
violates article III of the Constitution. which |
rovides that "no person shall hold or exercise at
he same time, more than one Office of trust or /
rOflt. eypPDf that Of iuafioa af fha
otary public" 10 the words of the learned /
idge of the Sixth District Court, II is too clear
n argument that the section making the lieuten-
lt governor Of the State a member of the Police
GARD, lie palpable violation of article III. The
rgument that It is not comforting another Office
Ut extending the duties of the lieutenant COVER |
or, is not sound. The lieutenant governor is a
Institutional officer, whose duties aud powers
re prescribed and defined in the Constitution |
o law can force him to perform any other duties
J lieutenant governor; and if the extra labor ia
lposed upon him in any other capacity than |
autensnt governor. it is a distinct office. aud
'mes within the inhibition contained in article
z.
But that prohibition applies only to Offices of
ont. The lieutenant governor may be made ex- |
heio the p esident, chairman or member of ten |
ousand oher offices, provided they be not
noes OF proht, but he cannot be made ex-officiO |
esioent, chairman or member OF any office Of |
ont, for If that could be done q willing legisa-
|
eme Court. ex-oficio judge of the several district
uTts, ex-ofieio secretary of state, ex.Oficio
ditor Of public accounts. eX-offico treasurer of |
e State, and give the whole government into
: hands.
4 gain, the act is unconstitutional because it
oates article ia of our Constitution, which elds
follows: EVERY law shall express its object or
iects in its title"
Now the act "a is entitled 6" an act to establish
police district, and to provide for |
G government thereof" If the court desired to |
severe, it might very well say that the title or
dy Of an act should be made in legal language |
al is, all the words, used in the title or body Of
e act should be interpreted as they are to be |
derstood in law, and not as they are usually |
derstood in conversational language; and, |
erefore, that the act, by virtue of its title |
'uld simply be unconstitutional for its purposes |
" establish a metropolitan police district and |
provide for the government ereof"-iust as |
u were Congress legislatng for a territory.
Now, to provide government thereof means, |
good legal language-ss a government is com. |
~edH Cd three ss-ssnos- brsuchcs, me executives, II
: judicial and the egislative-that said bill is |
ing to provide for all that in that metropolitan |
iirict; but will presume that such is not the |
,aning Of the act: it imports the meaning that |
3 word government" 10 common parlsnce,
'uld carry it, import, as In the phrase, " Rules
: the government of the court" Be it so. Still, |
section p, IT levies, or at least authorizes the
trict therein designated to levy, special tax
: the purpose of meeting the expenses incurred
q described in that Now the hill nowhara |