The St. Mary banner. (Franklin, Parish of St. Mary, La.) 1889-1931, 1906-04-07

Jul 1t Is charged in one instance that
} TN report Ct the expert architects con.
De inning the court house is false; that the
r. port that the public records are in dam
ger Is false. But it is not charged tina.
these reports We're know ingl, false or that
they were procured by the Poll.r jury for
the purpose OF depressing the people and
imposing upon them Useless lax Ii is
also charged that for many wears the ,'o-
lice Jurie> have neglected thv present
court house for the purpp>rpl CARRYING out
It's unlawful scheme of erecting IA new
court house. This j. III, most serious
charge Of fraud contained IN I'll, petition.
| But this is not charge directed >pecIli-
cally against the present Police Jury, 1t
| might well be that the preceding Police
Jrrles have bv their NEGLECT for many
wears brought about condition that com
pels the present Police Jury to remedy by
! building a new court house. The court i
! bound to take judicial e"gniIance OF the
| fact that the Police Juries change; that
their term of office Is only four wears. The
charge OF .raud. therefore. does not justify
the conclusion that the present Police
Jury, which Is attempting To huild Il court
house has not done lis duty, which under
| ne law, It IS presumed to have done.
Another reas assigned for the inlunc-
| tlon is that the Police Jury has made no
estimate OF the present or future revenues
Of the parish The ordinance after do.
clhrng thai tn" parish is III financial
con'illi"h |" build IA court house. and after
approprlattng $4,000 G3 from the reyenue.
OF l'o!, and apr prat ing he in>tallmeuts
from future revenues. prov idcs that thr,,
appropriations. which necessarily include
the appropriation for the so onV cash 40
taken from the revenues after all nrc,s-
>ary and legal charges have been maid
The Police Jury. therefore. must have
made an estimate "t the revenues of the
parish in order to have arrll ed Mt this ron.
Il a
Know that the parish was in financial
condition to build court house without
this. don't understand that the law re-
Iuires the Police Jury to publish tai, es-
innate or to make it 4 part Of the appro-
priation. III La. =. 80.
1t is also contendrd that the tax proro.ed IN Ia.
levied by the Police Jury is not uniform that the
people OF tn" Town OF franklin exempted
IRON parish taxation Ivy the Police jury of tb.
fdr,tl OF ~ Mary, and have been ior wears r>-
enptri from this tax. This necessarily impes
th:if II Is lN some agreement understanding
between the l'afochIai and municipal authorities
of me PARISH ana town. In order To pass ruun
thr Validity Of This il would b" necessary To- make
the Town of Franklin patty 10 This s,i1 and to
sci forth clearly the REASONS why and the condi.
tons under which the Town of Franklin il ry
rmptrd from this tax
TIE NEXT reason assigned for the Injunction is
that Act No. 81 Of 1907 i Unconstitutional ard
void III that il r"ntravcn.~ Art, II and ~ of th.
t"n>flfIit"n "i the State OF le.',. The rule as !
understand IT, Is thai the Acts of TN. Leuisla
tnre must be followed and ob,., "a until theT ~,
declared 10 he ,nconsi :tutional The province to
declare TINS + not with The inferior courts, In
my opinion, however, the present Act is NOT I'M
CONSTITUTIONAL; II Is III II" manner vi"lative of the
Constitution. am of the opinion therefore that
the petition as whole DOES not Justify an infe-
nor court IN lhnpciing. interfering or restraining
.he iohct Jury from performing what il con.
ceive, to be its duty. If the Police jury has
erred IN It's Judgment and if there is cause for
me writ to issue plaintiff, viii not be injured by
'his refusal as the Supreme Court of This State
can ana VIII direct the lower court i'll its duty.
viewing this petition as whole il il unnecrs.
SarH 10 pass upon the sliifcency of the prayer Of
ne petition The preliminary writ of injunction
herein prayed Tor is therefore denied.