The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1893-04-01
CONTINUED from fourth page.l

tlpfdtCt.
Article 156 provides that 'pritate
property shall not be taken or daun-
aged for public purposes without just
aud adequate compensation being fist
paid"
1t is contended that tn cnmuel II
man to work without compensation
for the pul,lit, % 81 remove at III
pense and without com ..eh>atI"". Ind
for bubble purposes. c',hdultS "r .lct-
fumes from the levte fronting hi>'
tate is To take private Property toi
public purposes without jas. and al
quate compensation ias. paid. ~ ~"
lation nf this IIicle.
In P%lantiu. and Manufacturing Co.
VS.. Tax Collector. 80 An. AGA. 'nr Su-
prenae Can't SAYS thar the n%nirihitiuu
of this article aud Article 6 Ia he
same effect only IA phi t. exactimrS
made III the exercise ct the Il.iIt of
eminent domain.
Bat in toe ca>c at bar, the law
under vie iiuds lis sanction. as We
have seen. III the tx rcise of the
police power of the STATE. il puner
different in It's nature ahd scope from
the hight of eminent dom IN.
See 81 An 1879: and Com. vs.. Alger
7Cn>h. (Msssj 81.
Is Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law ..
TAB, note | aud =. 744, note l..
1t Is also conttn,itd that the law
under which the d. PENDANT is held to
answer is obnoxious to Art. 20. which
provides that every law enacted by
the general assembly shall embrace
but one object, ard that shall be ex-
pressed lii the title"
Commenting on this constitutional
provision Judge Cooley SAYS: The
general purpose of these prn,isiohs 3
accomplished when Il law has but one
general object, which is fairly indlcat-
cd by its title. L" require end
and means necessary ur convenient
for the accomplishment of this general
object TO be provided for by a stpl-
rate act relating tn that alone, would
not only be unreasonable. but would
actually render legislation impossi-
BILE,
Cooley, C"nst. Lin. y. 14i.
Onr own Sugienie Court. in State
vs.. Henderson. 81 An. $50. ia,s down
the rule THAT this constitutional pro-
vision Is to be construed libera.lv. so
rs To c"lfine Its operation to cases
within the far scope OF tie motives
Tor is adoption and the mischief
sought t" he reinedIed tl,er.by,"-
winch was list to ohviate Confusion
III legislation by nilnsling iii the same
act entirely distinct aud heterogeneous
provisions; 2nd To prevent Dodge
p0d-e or log rolling legislation Bird
to prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislature Oh the people, b, sn,us-
Cling provisions into bills Of whici, the
title gave II" iniimatiorI, and which
might, therefore, be cdiclessll or IN
Intentionally adopted.
Applying these principles 0! con
strucilun To the act assailed. il seems
10 me that the attack upon 1t mas
fall-lt is true that the act is very
enthusiastically Trained, and leaves much
to be desired on the score Of precision.
but The central idea. the sole object OF
the legislature apparently, was to d.
away altogether with all rice tiuuues.
daflis, pipes or other foreign suhStan-
ces III the pubic levees of the State,
To attain this object, it adopted .wu
means, II which was to pnhibit
the placing OF rice fumes, datIls.
pipes or other foreign Substances IN
the pnbllc levees after IA certain de.
signarfd date, aud the other. TO re-
CURE the rtm"va by the police Jnries
OF all existing rIce-humcs, dahls,
pipes or other conduits from the said
leVees, ate. another certain date, aud
TO SANCTION the WhUle, it provided
certain penalties Tor the violation %;
any OF the provisions of the act, and
all OF this is expressed i'll the tile.
1t Is true that there are proyisos in
the act the objects of which are moi
expressed IN the. title; but these dc
not affrct the defendant The pow
o may be stricken from the act TN
der the authority OF STATE vs. Everagt
q ais 33 An. l20, and the rest of tile
law still stand under the authority d
Moore vs. CITY of New Orleans 81 An
72o-42. The law under consideration
will stand the tests prescribed in the
latter case. The unconstitltiona
p"Itlcn, the rrovisos, may be strickeI
out without affecting the SENSE of TIE
remainder which would still he com
pletc IN Itself aud capable of being
executed III accordance with the lcgis
lattNe intent, wholly independent O
the portion rejected.
ihls reasoning apl lies to the origi.
nal Act No. > of 1892. Act No. 6.
amending section = Of the aforesaid
act ceins I" he amenahle to the re
stlictioli Of Tie 18th article Of the Con
stitnti11. LIS principal object was t,
insert tx" additional piovI~os. the o5
ject of which, Ike thar OF the %oIi-ina