The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-02-02

Section provides ''that the New Orleans
Gas Light Company shall have the power to
increase, from time to time, the capital stock
of said company as the board of directors
may determine, to ansamount which shall not
exceed one million of dollars"
Section provides that the act shall not
take effect until it is accepted by not less than
two-thirds of the stockholders. 4,
The object Of the act was doubtless to give
the defendant an extension Of its charter for
twenty years from the 1st of April, 1875 and
that really was the grant made by the State,
the motive or inducement for making it be-
ing the advantage contemplated to accrue to
the people of New Orleans by having gas ex-
tended over q greater area, and supplied to
them at cheaper rate This object is not
embraced in the title. No hint or clue is
given, nothing is suggested in the title indi-
eating the purpose to prolong the period of
duration of the charter of the New Orleans
Gas Light Company, which had not then ex-
pired by fifteen years: The company is not
named in the title The purpose to extend
Light Company for twenty years from
LIST of April, 1875, is no more dis
closed in the title: can act to extend
the area Of gas lighting in the city
Of New Orleans, and to reduce the price now
paid by consumers" than the purpose to
create new corporation for making and
vending of gas is indicated therein. And
who doubts then the area of gas lighting
could be extended and the rate of selling it
reduced as we'll by creating one or several
new corporations to operate gas works and to
compete in carrying on the business. Yet, if
under this title one or several corporations
had been created for the purpose of operating
gas works for twenty years, or for any period,
could it be said that such purpose, the Gre
alton Of corporation, was disclosed in the
title? And the prolongiug of defendants
corporation for twenty years, virtually gives
it a new charter for that period.
Moreover the title is deceptive, and calcu-
lated to mislead the mind from the true OBJ
ject of the statute. No member of the Gen
eral Assembly at the time the bill was about
being passed, on hearing the title read, would
have supposed that its object was to obtain
from the State grant extending the charter
of the New Orleans Gaslight Company for
twenty years, or until LIST April, 1895. A
member who would object to extending the
charter might readily consent to q reduction
of the price of gas and to the extension of the
area supplying it, We therefore conclude
that the act of March 1st, 1860, extending the
charter of the New Orleans Gas Light Com
pany, as now established by law, until the 1st
day Of April, 1895, is repugnant to article lis
Of the constitution of 1852 then in force, and
is therefore void-3 A. 1854 A. 96-23 A.
72O. Cooley on Limitations al, $50; IA In
diana, 1876; Adams VS.. Webster and Morrison
vs.. Larkin, not yet reported, rs A.
1t is urged, however, that whe ther the act
of 1860 is constitutional or not, it was con-
tract which has been duly accepted by the
parties; that the defendant in performance of
the requirement thereof has extended the
ov,1 ra1,, <hn &c E~h%, ~
the city Of New Orleans; that the State after
receiving the benefits OF the contract cannot
deny the validity thereof, and that the plain
tiff, the grantee of the State, is estopped by
the act of it's grantor from disputing the
rights of the defendant arising under said
statute. This argument is unsound. The
defendant was charged with notice that the
was prohibited from passing an
act or granting charter in contravention of
article lis of its Constitution and the statute
in question, passed in violation thereof, was
utterly void from the beginning.
If the statute was void, the grant therein to
the defendant, prolonging its charter for
twenty years, was invalid !; and no subse-
quent act Of its own could cure the intirmity
or operate an extension of its charter, because
a creature cannot be its own creator And no
&C. of the General Assembly could cure the
defect or prolong the charter, unless done in
the manner prescribed by the Constitution,
and not in violation thereof.
Nothing but valid statute of the State |
could confer the grant extending the char
Ter of the defendant until 1885, and, as
before remarked, the act of March 1st. 1860,
being unconstitutional, was utterly void from
It's beginning. Cooley's Cont. Limitations,
1888; 25 Missouri. 341; 2 Dial. 3O8; Cranch,
l37, SO, ISL; Allen, 407; 20 Missouri, 593;
Marsh VS.. Fulton county, 10 Wallace, GIT; 3
\. 1876; Dillon on Municipal Cor. I'd ed, sec.
II; 90 A., 402; Mason, Al; Cal. 81; 10
[redell, 49, Hawkins, 1872; l Sum-, 278;
lrer, % An. 267.
We come now to the question whether the
lcts Incorporating the plaintiff 8 company,
md comforting on it the sole and exclusive
light to make and vend Illuminating gas in
he city of New Orleans for fifty years, from
st of April, 1875, are repugnant to article
IA of the Constitution of 1868, then in force,
equiring the object or objects of every law to
70 embraced in its title. And here the main
objection is as to the title of the act of Goth
april, 1870; that its title, can act to incor-
,orate the Crescent City Gas Light Com
,any," does not cover the monopoly con-
aimed in the 9th section thereof; that there
8 nothing in it indicating its purpose to
o make and vend gas in the city of New Or
cans for fifty years, from 1st April, 1875.
% this the plaintiff replies, that, under
similar title, monopoly of the
anne kind was granted to the
efendant in the charter of 1885, which was
by this court in the case of Pauld-
ng. II Rob-, 1878, and which has been ems
Dyed by the defendant for nearly forty year
,ithout its valdity having been questioned by
ny one. But the object of the act, as stated
ity Gas Light Company" To incorporate $
ompany is to create it with certain powers i
nd privileges, which need not be detailed, !
,r if they were the title would be as long as
le act. The title of the act disclosed the Gre
ton of gas company; this was sufficient to
over the monopoly, or exclusive privilege to
lake and vend gas
The precise question was before this court =
the Louisiana Lottery Company vs..
choux ct al, % A., 743, and also in the State