The weekly Iberian. (New Iberia, La.) 1894-1946, 1902-06-07
ST A YEAR,
The Steidley Act.


ion of a previous meeting, endors-
ing bill, prepared by Mr.. Brouss-
ard, to be submitted to the Lesis
Iature, being the Steidley act OF
last session, with a few amend.
ments, was recalled under a mo-
ton to reconsider. There were
two factions before the cedncil,
both contending and each denying
the contentious of the other. The
debate was animated and protract-
ed.
The Laws OF 1900 created some
confusion in drainage matters OF
this town, resulting in no work
being done in the New Iberia
Bayou Carlin Drainage District.
1t has become necessary to
either amend the existing laws so
as to harmonic them or to enact
new laws altogether. There are
two propositions now before the
Legislature, one represented by
Mr.. r. F. Broussard and the old
board of drainage commissioners,
and the other by the parties to the
original Steidley act. Both sides
have decided to make the Steid-
lev act the basis of the new law,
proposing slight amendments
thereto. The Broussard faction
propose certain amendments
which grant the police jury the
power Of entering town domain
with drainage district, under
the sanction of the city council,
and an amendment to the towns
charter making this police jury
act possible.
The objections advanced to the
BrOussard amendments briefly:
That the privilege granted the
Police Jury to act in this matter
over territory within the city
limits is a dangerous PRECEDENT to
establish in any act. 1t would
become an entering wedge for
further attacks upon the towns
charter and may ultimately re-
suit in the abrogation Of this very
desirable privilege the town now
enjoys.
That the town under that act
would not haze the authority Of
exercising any of it's present priv
ileges. If the commissioners, un-
der that law, would propose five
mill tax for forty years, the pro-
position would be submitted, not
to the people Of the town of New
Iberia alone for their ratification
or rejection, but to vote of the
entire district. There is posi-
bility that the town might poll q
200 majority against the PROPOSE
ton, yet by pol majority from
the country the proposition would
become binding upon the town
and tax it without It's consent.
That the present laws make
drainage systems for both town
and country possible, yet pre-
serve their individual rights.
That under a combined town
and country district there would
be many difficult questions to
arise, the town needs sewers, the
country lateral drains. 1t will be
difficult to maintain balance OF
proportions of the costs of these
two features, yet meet the needs
Of both town and country.
The Broussard Amendment
would require q uniform tax over
the entire district. In the face Of
the fact that the towns assess
ment is about 81 200, 900 while the
country part Of the drainage dis
trict would give an assessment Of
only $500, 900, it will be seen thai
the town would have to put oul
d to every u from the country il
the revenues depended upon I
millage tax. As a 800 invest.
ment in the country is positively
assessed for less than a 800 invest
ment in the town, the difference
becomes more exaggerated. Al
the town will in all probability in
crease its assessment more rapidly
than the country, more burden
some win the scheme prove from
year to year.
A drainage district once created