The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1885-11-07
THE POWER OF POLICE JU
RIES TO ENFORCE ROAD
LAWS.

vail in this parish that the Police
jury cannot enforce a road ordi
lance which prescribes that the in
dividual citizen must work on the
public road, or pay a fine for his
failure to do so, We have taken the
trouble of consulting the decisions
OF our Supreme Court on the sub
jec1, aud we herewith present the
result Of our Investigations in that
quarter.
The decision we shall cite is found
reported in 80 An. page 1893, and
is entitled, Parish of st. Martin ex
rel Baker VS.. DeIahoussaye. The
opinion of the court was delivered
by Manning. Chief Justice, and is
in these words :
''Thc defendant was summoned
to work on the public roads of st.
Martin parish, and having refused,
incurred a fine of Que dollar for
each day that he failed to obey the
summons. The overseerO Of the road
sued him for tour dollars, the tiaes
as many days Of delinquency.
The defendant pleaded a general
denial, and the "unc0ns,itutionality
of the tax levied upon him." tur
nished written reasons for judg
ment which begin by properly re
citing that the action is for the re
covery of five dollars for failure or
fines for having refused to work Oh
the roads, but conclude by ruling
that the ordinance of the police ju
ry, imposing the fines, levies a di
rect tax upon the people, and is
therefore unconstitutional.
The Justice is in error. Police
%juries w authorized to pass all or
dinances relatire to roads, and TO
IMPOSE SUCH FINES AND PENAL
TIES TO ENFORCE THEN AS THEY
MAY THINK PROPER. and then
these fines may be enforced by or
binary process in the name of the
Police Jury. Rev: Stats. Sec. 1864.
The police jury otSt. Martin pass
ed an ordinance requiring persons
between certain ages to work on
the public roads, and imposed a
fine of one dollar for each day of
failure to work when required.
The defendant incurred the penalty
denounced by the ordinance, after
having been only summoned. and
HE MUST PAY FOR HIS DERELIC
TON OF PUBLIC DUTY.
One OF the surest tests of the civ
i!ization OF a country is the condl
ton of its public roads. Years ago,
at the termination OF that period
| when able bodied men were needed
elsewhere than at home, there was
good excuse for impossible roads,
but there is no good reason now
why those who are liable to road
duty should not be made to contrib
ute "A part of their time and labor
to relieve the country from the re
proach of having highways which
are II danger to a traveller, and an
obstruction to those who have to
transport produce over them.'
The court condemned the defend
ant to pay the fine imposed by the
Parish OF st. Martin, and all costs
of the lower court and of theappeal
In view of the strong, clear and
explicit language employed by the
Supreme Court in the quoted case,
it is not worth while for any one te
dispute the power and authority Of
police juries over the public roads
Hence, inspectors need not fear the
enforcing of the ordinances adol
ted by the police Jury of this parish
on the subject of public roads.
An Old Citizen Speaks.
Mr.. ]. NJ. Norris. an old resident q