The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1880-10-28

OF the suit on the ground that there
Is no law authorizing an enquiry into
or contest of the election held on the
22d of July, 1880, and none of the
requirements of the law applicable
to contests OF elections have been
complied with, and that it is too late.
more than thirty days having elaps-
ell since said election was holden. to
enquire into its validity. This ex-
ception was, by the Court aqua, re.
TERED to the merits. Defendants, in
their answer, ayerred that the police
jury had complied with the law or.
dering the holding and promulga-
ton of the election; that majority
OF the electors of the parish having
voted in favor of a removal of the
parish seat, Bellevue is not entitled
to be placed in the list of the places
to be voted for at the second cleo.
ton. They pray for dissolution of
the injunction, and that the election
between Benton and Coleville shall
be proceeded with and promulgated
according to Law.
B. T. Fort interviewed in the suit,
setting up interest in himself,
averring that the removal of the par.
ish seat would work irreparable in.
jury to him and that he would there.
by sustain damages for various
causes set forth in an amount ex.
ceeding $1,000. He AYERS that said
act No. 81 ''has no effect, the same
being null aud void as violating the
constitution of the State of Louisi
ana and particularly articles 10, 80
and $50 thereof. He prayed for pro
lection of the injunction. This in.
terventian was put at issue.
The constitutionality of Act No.
81 OF the General Assembly OF the
State of Louisiana, approved March
10th. 1880, is clearly brought before
US for our decision and adjudication.
Art. 90 of the constitution of 1879,
declares ''every law enacted by the
General Assembly, shall embrace
but one object, and that be express
ed in the title" The title of Act No.
81 is, can act prescribing the man.
ner of changing parish lines and of
removing parish seats.n We arc of
opinion that two objects, distinct
and separate and not cognate are
embraced in this act and clearly in
dictated, even by the title ITSELF
The trainers of the constitution re-
garded the objects set forth in the
act and its title as being distinct, for
in Article $50 we find this provision:
can laws changing parish lines or
removing parish seats shall, before
taking effect, be submitted" etc. To
remove parish seat is one object,
in which the people of one parish
alone have a direct interest; the
change of parish lines affects the in
terests of two or more parishes. The
change of parish lines does not in
volve the change of parish seat and,
vice versa, removal of parish seat
has no necessary connection with
change of parochial boundaries
We must not be understood as de-
Gliding that an act which contains in
its body provisions which are incl
dental to the object declared in the
title of the bill or details aud minu-
tie necessary and intimately con-
nected with such object would rem.
der such act unconstitutional, but,
as in this act, the incorporation of
several distinct objects neither nee.
essary to carry into effect the other
would render the whole act nugatory
Is being violative of constitutional
We adopt the doctrine
aid down by Judge Cooley in his
work on constitutional limitation, p.
LA, where he says: "The general