The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1889-11-21

conduct of these elections must be
in the Legislature, for otherwise such
elections could not be held legally.
Hence we conclude that the trainers
of the Constitution did not and could
not have intended to paralyze by Art.
46, or in one and the same breath, a
necessary power which they created
and conferred in Article $50.
The limitation contained in Article
DC means that in general elections,
the Legislature cannot provide for q
mode of conducting or opening cleo
tons in one locality or part of the
State different from others, by means
of a local or special law. Such diff
ferences can be operated Or effected,
as it is done, only in general law.
But we are clear in the conviction
that the Article has no reference or
application to special elections held
under the mandate of Article $50.
6.
On the ground of the objection
growing out of Article $50, the argu-
ment seems to be that the Act is OBJ
noxious to the Constitution because
the statute does not squarely remove
the parish seat from one locality to
another particular or designated spot
or point, but from one place to an
indefinite number of places at the
same election. From our reading of
the Act it appears that the intention
was unequivocally to remove the par
ish seat from Bellevue, which is the
exercise of a power clearly conferred
by Article $50. It is there clearly
submitted to the votes of the electors
for ratification or rejection. Uuder
the Article the Legislature had the
undoubted power to finally select
another locality as the parish seat; it
chose to leave the exercise of that
power to the people. It had the
greater power, and that certainly in
Guided the less. Where is the harm
under constitutional test?
AS argued by counsel, the mode adopted
moro expensive; or it may be unwise and I'M
| fair, but il is not unconstitutional and surely
| it cannot pretend that the Judiciary depart
| ment of the State should assume or usurp the
| power and function Of enforcing its own views
OF wisdom aud propriety on the law making
| power.
The only mandate of the Judiciary is to see
| that the law maker shall not trangress beyond
| constitutional barriers; and true wisdom die
tates that even that power shall never be ex-
| erted but IN extreme cases. The legislation
! which We have considered and which we have
| endeavOred to eXpound, does not present such
| case and we must therefore decline to inter-
| tere with the execution of the solemn express
| sion OF legislative will in the matters which
are herein submitted to our review.
1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed, that the Judgment appealed from be
| annullcd, avoided and reversed, and it is now
! ordered that the injunction herein obtained by
plaintiffs be dissolved and their action dismiss
ed at their costs in both Courts. And it is
further ordered, that the right Of the defend
ants tosue for and recover damages on account
of said Injunction be reserved.
SYLLABUS.
Under the provisions of Article $50 of the
Constitution, in all cases in which the legisla-
ture passe an act removing the parish seat OF
any parish, it must order special election foI
the purpose of ratification or rejection of the
/ Act by the electors of the parish,
The legislature has, in such cases, tho full
| power by special Act to prescribe rules foi
conducting such elections, and to adopt such
parts of the general election laws as may suit
the purpose. Article As, which prohibits the
enactment of special or local laws for opening
or conducting elections, has no reference tC
| special elections required by the Constitution
in eases of removals of parish seats.
Judgment reversed.
! Judgment for defendants.