The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1894-01-13
REMOVAL OF POLICE JURORS.
Highly Important Decisio OH by the Court
of AppenIs.-Poiice Jurors are Ward
Officers ,nnh Not Removable by tina
Governor.


has been rendered by the Court of Appeals OF
! this circnit. Judges Blackman and Perry pre-
| siding Judge Blackman was the organ OF the
! court
District Attorney, and Isaac RoOs VS.. Eraste
Dupre.-Conrt Of Appeals, Third Circuit. st,
| Landry parish.
Defendant. Eraste Dupre, was appointed IN
1892 by the Governor police juryman for the first
| ward or st: Landry parish, was duly commits
stoned and qualified; and for several months
had discharged the duties of his office.
! On the 18th OF June 1893, the Governor re-
moved defendant and appointed in his place
! Isaac RoOs, plaintiff herein. Whereupon de-
| fendant Dupre obtained an order of injunction
from the District Court of St Landry restraining
| the said Isaac ROos from interfering with him as
police Juryman, and restraining the president
OF the police jury from 1ecosnizinS the said
| Rons as member Of the police jury.
! Thereupon the District Attorney instituted
| this proceedln under the intrusion into Office
act against defendant Dupre praying that he
| be adjudged to be an unlawful holder of the
oftice OF police juror OF the first ward of st.
Landry parish and that he be excluded from
! the same. This suit was twice tried by jury,
which returned verdicts in favor OF defendant,
and judgment Was rendered by the district
Judge in accordance Herewith, from which the
plaintiffs prosecute this appeal.
! ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL.
Defendants move to dismiss the appeal Oh
| several grounds which we deem 1t unnecessary
10 notice IN erte'1so as we consider that we
| have already passed on these issues in the man
uamus proceedings against the District Judge
compelling him to grant the present order OF
appeal, and tor these reasons the motion to dis
miss Is overruled.
ON THE MERITS.
Plaintiffs contend that a Police Jurymau be-
| ing appointed by TIE Governor is subject to
removal py him as provided for in act 1875, extra
session OF 1877, page 1884, which act reads as
| follows;
THAT the Governor be and he is hereby au.
thoriz' and empowered to remove for cause
I or lncOmpetcucy any officer or anpOintee,
/ whose appointment Is vested IN him"
Defendant Dupre contends that this act is re-
pugnant to Art. POI of the Constitution of 1879.
which reads as follows: " For any OF the causes
| enumerated in Art. 1876, district ATTORNEYS $
clerks of court, sheritfs, coroners recorders JUS
! tices of the peace and all other parish, munici-
pal and ward officers shall be removed by ,judg-
ment of the District Court of the do1pci of
such officer, etc.
/ In order to determine this question OF repug-
nancy between act l25 of 1877, authorizing the
! governor to remove officers appointed by him,
! and the mode of removal provided for in Art
20l of the CONSTITUTIONS it is essential first to as
certain the class of officers to which 4 police
juryman belongs, that is, is he state 4 parish,
n municipal or ward officer.
/ In a limited sense all civil officers are state
officers clothed with certain powers and 1unc-
! tlons Tor the performance of certain duties,
within certain circumscribed territorial
/ limits, and in the proper exercise of such
! official duties and powers are protected by
the strong arm of the state government
/ Slll, some OIL IncSt OtIlCcrS mere
auxiliares. incidents and agencies. only
/ in their relation to the state government, and
! have no place III the state government as such.
considered in its broad and comprehensive
/ sense. Their official authority and power is
confined strictly within the territory of their
parishes. municipalities or wards. and are fur
/ ther limited to things that pertain strictly to
municipal, parish and ward affairs. aud not
state affairs
! Thus, a mayor of city, or town, is a munich
pal officer whose powers and functions are linn
tod
parish. Parish officers are those created by
! the Constitution or by legislative enactment,
and while dlscharglng many duties under the
general laws Of the state, are still parish officers
because OF their powers and duties being CON
fined strictly within the limits Of their parish
sherlts, clerks OF court. coroners, &c, are par
lsh officers and recognized by the c ,nstitll-
ton, While justices OF the peace, constables and
some other officers are ward officers. their du-
ties being confined 10 the limits OF their wards.
In case of State eX rel. Atty. Gen. and Martin
VS.. Lamantia, 80 An, Judge Fenner, the organ
of the court, says: For convenience and eff
cacy of administration the state has created
certain political corporations known as cities,
towns and parishes to which it has delegated
certain powers or government. IN the case Of
cities and towns, thesr powers are generally de-
fined in their charter or act of lncorporatlon
In case of parishes, they are prescribed by gen
eral or special statutes. These subordinate cor
pOrations, like the state itself necessarily exer-
else the functions contded to them through off,
GERS whose duties, powers, mode Of appoint
ment and tenure of office are regulated by law.
~" In a strict and proper sense, a parish or mu-
nlclpal officer is an officer of Il parish or city,
exercising powers belonging to the city or par
lsh, and binding them by his acts within the
scope OF his authority"
In support of his decision the learned judge
refers to a decision OF the United States Su-
preme Court reported in Sd Wall, SO, which
says: An officer OF the county is one by VIII ON
the county performs Its usual political func-
tlons, its functions OF government"
The Constitution recognizes the difference be-
tween state constitutional ofi lers parish, nu-
nicipal and ward off1cers-thus dividing them
lnto four classes, and providing different me.
thods for their removal.
1t is contended by plaintiffs counsel that a
police nlryman Is safe officer as he is ap-
position relies on the following cases decided by
our Supreme Court viz: State VS.. Taylor, 11th
Southern Reporter, lSS, and Newhousc VS.. New
house, 20 Anu, s24, and State VS.. Jean. 8 S. R.,
$50.
III the case Of the State VS.. Taylor. criminal
case, where the defendant indicted for murder,
moved to quash the indictment for the reason
that the grand jury which found the indictments
was illegal because one of the jury commission
ers who participated in til drawing OF the jury
was disqualified to act as he had b en- elected
and had qualified since his appointment as jury
commissioner as member of the town council
for the town Of Lafayette, Judge McEnery the
organ of the court, said:
Art. l59 Of the Constitution provides that no
person shall hold or exercise, at the same time,
more than one Office Of trust or profit except
that of justice of the peace and notary public"
ION Judge McEnery said: I'm the Constitution
of 1s45 there was an article OF similar import =
In interpreting This article, in the case of
Dorsey VS.. Waugh, Ann. 1856, the court held
hat the acceptance of the Office OF parish tax
collector by the sheriff did not violate said ar
tcle as the office Of parish tax collector was d
municipal office and that the incompatibiity
contemplated by the Constitution was the hold
ing of two state offices.
In the Con stitutiOn Of 1852 there was a smi-
lar provision, and it was held by this court that
81 wi thn
intendment OF Art. 122 Of the Constitution.
'Since then In recent years police juries have
been made state officials by legislative enact
ment They are appointed by, the governor,
and our DEGREES have recognized them as such,
and in Newhouse vs.. Newhouse, 90 La An s24
and State VS. Jean, 42 La An. 947, we held that
the acceptance of the Office of police Juror by
one holding the office OF Jury commissioner va.
Gated the latter office"
Under the previous Constitutions Of Louisiana
police juror was not considered state officer
and the Supreme Court decided that it was
not in conflict with the Constitution for an
officer to hold two or more Offices Of trust and
profit unless the two offices were constitutional;
hence, the Supreme Court held that police
juror was not an officer within the intendment
of this constitutional prohibition.
II police juryman was not n state officer
under the former Constitution Of this state
what makes him one now9 Is he a state Off.
Ger because the Legislature authorized the
governor to appoint instead of allowing the
people to elect as was formerly done9 Are the
changed or modified by his mere appointment
Has he any greater powers than he had before
under the law of his creation? We think not
His functions before his appointment was con.
fined to parish and ward affairs, the building
OF courthouses and ials, providing for certain
police regulations within the parish, Ievying OF
parish taxes and many other duties, none OF
which have any connection with the state
government or with state affairs. In our opin
ion, the duties, powers and functions of an off
Ger, the affairs with which he is connected and
a ~ ryI-fi oh ha to 70 1r