St. Landry democrat., 1886-06-26
Minority Report Of the Conn ln it -
tee on Corporations on Re-
lllOV:si of COurfhOuSe
from OpciOus:a>.
IL the Pre<HleW nud Npmbr,;s Of the

IL me ifeSfHfW NHH -HrHibfi'S Of the
Senate
The committee Oh corporations hay
ing nndcr consideration Senate bill No.
-being an act to provide tol the le-
moval of the parish seat of the parish of
st. Landry, Senators l'raughn, O'Den-
nell, Bricr, kavana2h and Denas of
the committee being majority agree to
report the bill favorably.
We the undersigned members of the
committee being in the minority res
pectfully represent that we cannot con-
cur in the report for the following rea-
sons:
That no evidence OF Il desire for the
passage of the bill WAS adduced before
the verbal statements OF Il few gentle
men from the town of Washington and
its vicinity, the place to which ii Is
sought 10 remove the parish seat.
There WAS absolutely no proof before
the committee of Il demand hv the body
OF the people, not ptcunia,ily interested
for such irgi>latioi. The gentlemen
advocating the bill, although invited to
do 50 10y one OF their representatives
have not presented a single petition in
behalf OF the bill, and when asked why
they did not resort to this means of get
ting at the will Of the people, they give
the Insufficient reason that petitions are
of no value. " hlIt, as Il general rule
This may to some extent be trne, Yet in Il
matter of this kind, the issue is SO simple
that no one however ignorant could be
deceived and the SeuSe of the people
could he very etfectIally ascertained by
Il resort to petitions. In our Judgment it
is the only proper mode of reaching the
voice of the people in a case like this,
when measure is being pressed OSten-
>lbly I'D heir Interest.
The omission of the people of Washing
ton toadupt it, after being invited to do
SO argues the weakness of their cause
with their people.
No legislation Of ii purely local charac-
ter is defen>ible except upon the ground
that il is demanded by the people to be
affected thereby, and. upon the theory t
least, that it is demanded by a majority
of the people. This rule should he eS-
pecially adhered to in Il case necessarily
engtndellHg IA bitter strife of which
there can be no douht in this case.
To an impartial mind these couSidera-
tons alone would seem sufficient To pre-
vent the passage of the bill. But the
committee We're not left in the dark us to
the wishes OF the people.
Nearly 3G0) voters outside of either
town and from different parts OF the
parish have ncmorIallZed the General
\ >semblv on this precise question aud
vigorously protest against the passage
of the act. In addition TO this, three ont
OF the four representatives in the House
sent 20 the committee Il written protest
against either tile passage OF the bill
or ID favorable report from the commit
lee. SO far, therefore, as the committee
! is Informed upon the su tiect the body of
the people and four out of the six repre-
Srntatives in the General Assembly are
opposed to the bill.
When it is further considered that the
police jury of the parish has entered into
and slgued a contract to1 the erection OF
the courthouse, now in process of con
Struction at OpelouSas, the present par
iSh seat, that OpelousaS is fixed as the
place for holding the Federal courts I'M
der the act OF Congress; that bills have
passed the /. :. Senate for the erection
OF IA public building at that place for
that accommodation with everv prospect
for Il final passage of the bill, the coDclu-
sion is clear that IL majority of the people
to be affected are opposed to the pro-
posed measure. and that it ought not to
pass.
We therefore dissent from the views
of the majority and respectfully protest
against the passage of the bill.
Lew is, Gaskin, Kelly and Smart.