St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1909-03-27

ORaOGaO WRURSUNO
tent attempts to create new parishes
after the adoption of the constitution
of 1879 can readily account for the
insertion in the present constitution
Of conditions still more restrictive
than those previously imposed.
The d~ivisionists Of The parishes OF
Galcasieu, and of Gatahoula, and Of
Acadia, caused acts to be introduced
in the legislature to carry out their
plans, and laid regular seige to both
branches Of that body. The contests
which arose became so heated and
persistent that legitimate legislative
work wa DELAYED for weeks, and
Legislation Of all kinds was seriously
embarrassed. So persistent were the
advocates for the creation Of the par
ish Of Troy ont Of the territory Of
Gatahoula parish, that both sides be-
came exhausted by the long continued
struggle and came to q compromise
which the legislature eagerly accept
ed TO be rid Of the harrassing issue.
The struggle Of the residents Of Jen-
nings TO create a parish out Of the
territory Of the eastern portion OF
Ca1casieu was quite as persistent ard
troublesome to the legislature. Now.
there were in the convention that
framed the present constitution a
number Of the members of the Senate
and House, witnesses 10 the prolonged
and hurtfuI contests which had taken
place on that question before the
legislature; and among these was the
Hon. A. 2. Puio, then and ever q de-
termined opponent 10 any division Of
the parish Of Calcasieu, and who is
credited with having introduced the
additional restrictions. It is quite
evident that that gentleman, as we'll
as the other members of that body,
were determined to incorporate in the
/ constitution conditions against the
creation Of new parishes still more
restrictive than those III the then
existing constitution, il order TO make
it SO difficult to create q new parish
that the greed of Office, the ambition
of small villages to become county
seats, and the ambitious schemes of
politicians, should no longer be per-
mitted to harrass the public mind and
deter the legislature from performing
its legitimate work. Note in this
connection that, 50 far as is known TO
the writer, there has never been any
exciting dispute as to a parish line
between the parishes of the State.
Certainly the Courts had ample author
ity to settle such questions in case Of
dispute, and no occasion whatever
called for the insertion in the consti
tuition Of the provisions IN question il
they have reference merely to 9
change of existing parish boundaries,
while as shown above, there was press
ing necessity that some restrictive
measures should be put in the con
stitution against the attempts te
create new parishes out of the terri
tory Of existing parishes. 1t is ele-
mentary that Id interpreting statutes
on the same subject matter which are
apparently in conflict, reference must
be had to the evil intended to be
remedied or prevented, and no intelli-
gent or satisfactory solution Of tbs
question CT the true intent Of tbs
sections of the constitution under dis,
cussion can be had without taking
into consideration the conditions Elk
listing at the dates of the adoption Of
the two last constitutions and anterior
thereto; and / cannot believe that the
Attorney General, for whose opinion
III entertain the highest respect, ha:
given to this question that careful
and exhaustive examination which it:
Importance merits.
/ will without delay send you an
other communication demonstrating
that the line of division proposed il
the enabling act is both arbitrary ant
%ruinous, not only to the old city 81
Opelousas, but to the mother parish
viii also show that the promoters
of this parish division scheme in th'
Senate and in The House have driver
the plaintiffs in the pending injnnc'
] ton suit, in their own behalf and tina
Of their fellow parishioners, and as
matter Of self-preservation, to tax
this matter into the Court, and there
fore, that the divisionists are respon
sible for this litigation.
), Respectfully,
TH0S If. LEWIS.
/ New Version.