The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1894-01-13

the same class. who are auxaries to the state
government for the purpose of carrying on the
great object and aims or government for the
general welfare and protection of the people
of the state under general laws defining their
duties. This class of auxiliary state officers
being appointed by the governor are subject to
removal by him for incompetency or any other
cause, because the law so provides.
In the 33 A. $50, where the contest was over the
| right of the governor to remove an inspector
OF weights and measures for the first district
OF New Orleans, and the appontlnent OF an
other to I'LL the vacancy caused by the remov-
al, the court said: e" Looking to the charter
| and amendments thereto OF the city of New
| Orleans and to the laws regulating the powers
| OF parishes, we do not find that the power of
regulating and inspecting weights and meas
ures, and to require persons 10 comply with
such regulations, and TO impose fines and pen
altles for non compliance, and exactlns fees
| for inspection, was ever conferred upon any
| city or parish These were powers OF govern
ment reserved to the state, capable of being
exercised by the state alone, and actually ex-
ercised by herself directly. through officers ap-
! pointed by the governor representing the state
| exclusively and accountable to the state only"
In the case Of Wilson VS.. Wiltz, 80 Ann, it
was held that public administrator was Il
state officer Says the court:
" He holds his office directly from the state
under appointment by the governor OF the
| tions are regulated exclusively by the gen.
| eral laws Of the state He derives no power
directly or indirectly from the parish OF from
| the people thereof He has no connection, OF
any kind, with the parish or munlcipalgov-
ernment, and exercises no functions having
reference to such government, or any CON
| ntctlon whatever with purochial or municipal
| affairs"
The doctrines enunciated in these two de-
| clslons, supported as they are by a large num-
| Der of decisions Of the highest courts ii other
| states on the same subject, establish the dis
! tinction between state, parish, municipal and
ward officers and are directly at variance with
| the decision of the Supreme Court In the case
OF State vs.. Taylor, in the A Annual, relied on
as his conclusive authority by the counsel for
plaintiff In our opinion tie question as to
whether pc lice julOr was q state or parish or
ward officer In the meaning and intcndment of
art POL Of the constitution was not before the
court for its decision, nor was 1t necessary to
pass on that question ; and that part of thu de
| cIsion which decides that police jurymani Is
state officer is an o6iter dictum Ii it is not al
| cbtter dictum it stands isolated and alone, un-
supported by any other decision rendered by
the cup1eme Court. 1t is not supported by the
eases Of Newhause vs.. Newhause, 29 an. S24,
and state VS.. Jean, southern Reporter 450, or
the question whether police Juror was a state
| or parish officer was not passed on
! The question decided in the case OF the State
! Us, Jean was that one who held the position OF
jury commissioner and who accepted the Office
| OF a police juror afterwards, vacated the first
| office.
In the Newhause case the name OF rolice
juror is not mentioned and can, therefore, have
no application.
In the SO A. 1929 state y>. Dilenwood, wl.n
! the question as to whether police juror was a
| state officer within the ntendment Of art. I59
Judge Fenner, the organ OF the court, said
that several questions delicate and not free
from difficulty are presented in the briefs,
! touching the character Of the officers referred
TO, in art l59 OF the constitution, but we find it
| unnecessary to decide them "ConcedlnG."
says the Judge, "t"r the ;ake Of argument
merely, and withouj - deciding, that the office
Of jury commissioner. in the country parishes,
ana also, the other offices alleged to have been
| held by the parties her.. We're all offices within
| the meaning and iutrndment of the const!tu-
tional provision and Incapable OF being stimuli
| taneously held by the same person, we yet find
| one reason for ovcr%uIlng The motion to quasn
| the yenire, which must prevail, viz: II the
offices are inconsistent the parties by qualify
| ing as commissioners vacated their former
offices"
| Here the court refused to pass the lues-
tion,. although it refers back to the case Of
Newhause but did not concede that this ques-
| ton as to character Of Il police juror had been
determined in that decision
With the profoundest respect for the author
| ity of the Supreme Court we consider it our du-
| ty to follow its decision, but we do not consider
| tue opinion in the case Of the State Vs. Taylor,
so confidently relied on by plaintiffs, as author
itatlvely settling the question. II ii Is not an
obiter dtcum, it is not so far conclusive against
our opinion herein expressed as to cause lis to
stand by it on the doctrine of stare decisis.
officer
| 1t is urged by defendants counsel that he is
parish officer because of the functions and
duties of his office and cannot therefore be re-
moved from office except i'll the manner point
| ed out by Art. POI OF the Constitution. With
our views, 1t is unnecessary for us to discuss
| the question as to whether police juror is a
| parish or municipal officer.
| In fixing his status We must have reference
to the law creating the office. and see where the
| law makers have placed him.
! By legislative Act. No. 81 of 1877, the police
| jury was reorganized. That act provides TOR
| the election of police jurors by each police jury
ward after the parish shall be divided into
| police jury wards Section or the act reads
as follows: That the election for police jurors,
Justices of the peace and constables shall be
|
| general election, and that police jurors shall
be elected by the qualified electors OF the police
| jury wards, and that justices of the peace and
constables shall be elected by the qualified elec.
| tors OF the justice Of the peace Or election
ward, and in order that none but qualified
electors of the ward shall vote for ward off,
GERS, the officers now charged by existing laws
| or by any amendments thereto are hereby in
| structed to provide at each poll, separate box
| in which the ballots for ward officers shall be
| deposited, ana the returns OF said election shall
| be made separate from the returns of votes
cast for other officers i'll tho manner required
| by law
| This law, which has not been amended OF re-
| pealed, except In 40 far as 1t authorizes the
! Governor to appoint police jurors instead of
| electlnS them is the law to-day, and was the
! law when the Constitution of 1879 was adopted.
| This law declares police jurors Justices Of
| the peace and cOnstable3 to be ward officers,
! and il their status or class officers has not
hitherto beon fixed, it is for the reason that
| this law has not been called to the attention
of the court. 1t will not be contended that the
Legislature which had the power to create
| this office, had not the right to nane tuem
and flx the class to which they belong.
The Legislature having, III our opinion, NOM
| mated them in the act ward officers, they re-
main as such whether they are elected or ap'
| pointed.
| The causes that influenced tile Legislature To
make them appOintlve instead OF elective are
we'll known, and forms Il part Of our political
| history.
| This power to elect was taken from the l:eo-
pie as the law now provides only for a limited
thnn M t1,a fi,trr
! the appointment evidences the intention to rel
| police jury wards
But it is contended thai Act No. 125 OF 1877,
which authorizes the Governor to remove all
officers appointed by him il still i'll force, and
! applies here.
II our position be correct that 1t police juror
is a ward officer, and was such when the Con
stitutiOn of 1879 was adopted. 1t necessarily fol
| lows that his removal cannot be made by the
| Governor, and only by Judgment of the DIS
trict Court, as provided IN Article 20 Of that
| instrument.
Nowhere does the Constitution declare what
! ward officers are, but it is fair to presume that
| the Constitutional Convention recognized po-
| lice jurors as ward officers under the law then
| in existence, for it recognized the existence OF
police iuries by name in Article 2!9 Of tha Con
stltutiOn.
That Constitution is recognized by all con
tanning more restrictions against til" Various
branches of the government tla" nny other
that has existed in the state
Recognizing the fact that police jurors were
then ward officers under the law, elected by
the people, it was the evident intention OF the
Constitution makers to provide for his removal
by suit in Article 201 leaving at least the power
with the people to bring snit for the removal
of this officer for corruption, oppression md
malfeasance in office, and to prevent his re-
moval for any other cause, or in any other
way than is fixed by the Constitution.
For these reasons it is ordered, adjudgen ano no
affirmed at plaintiffs costs in both cases