St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1910-01-22
constitution provides:

02&19bVAN&0A RApBIAGSa
Whenever d parish shall be en-
larged or created from territory CON
tiguous thereto, it shall be entitled
to q just proportion of the property
and assets, and be liable for a lust
proportion of the existing debts or
liabilities of the parish or parishes
from which such territory shall have
been taken
The apportionment here required
to be made between the new parish
and the old of the property and as
sets and liabilities of the old parish,
is thus required to be made when
ever the g parish is created, that
is to say, at the time it is created,
or in other words, in the same act in
which it is created. The evidence
shows that the parish Of st. Landry
has property and assets and also
liabilities, and yet the said Act So
makes no apportionment of same be-
tween it and the new parish.
Doubtless, it would suffice for the
legislature to fix the basis for the
apportionment thus required to be
made, and let the parties, or the
courts, work out the details; but at
least must it provide a basis for the
apportionment; else there is no basis
upon which to make it. The point is
not new in Jurisprudence, as is shown
by the following excerpt from Abbott
on Municipal Corporations, Vol. 1. p.
IS, Section II, which is supported by
a long list of decisions from different
states, to-Wit:
The legislature having arbitrary
power, as has been said over the or
ganization of all public corporations,
to create or dissolve them, increase
or diminish their boundaries, legis-
late as to their debts or liabilities
and property, except so far as the
rights of third parties may be af-
feeted, it follows that upon the d.
vision or annexation Of territory it
has the right and the power to de-
termine and apportion, in a fitting
manner the obligations and the prop
erty of those corporations. Il is for
the legislature to determine what ex-
tent the property or the inhabitants
Of the detached portion shall bear
the burdens of the organizations to
which they formerly belonged. The
courts even under constitutional pro-
visions to the effect that every or
g~anzation created out of another
shall be liable for a just proportion
of existing debts, do not have the
power to determine such proportion.
1t il held that this is a legislative
question. It il for the legislature to
either itself determine what this
proportion shall be or to establish a
rule Of basis for tia division, and
where an act In division imposes
what seems to be q disproportionate
part of the liabilities or burdens, the
courts have no power to inquire and
adjust the obligations upon d differ
ent basis
Another defect of said Act SO is
that it has not assigned the said par
ish to any railroad district. This,
under the reasoning of the court is
the decision of Adams vs. Forsyth,
supra, was essential. By section 2
Of said Act the proposed new parish
il assigned to a Judicial, q Supreme
Court, a Senatorial, a Congressional
and a Circuit Court district; but not
TO a railroad district. It was just as
necessary TO assign it to a railroad
district as to these other districts,
since by article 289 Of the constitu-
ton the entire territory Of the state
is divided into railroad districts, and
the several parishes are assigned to
their respective districts, A parish
not thus assigned, 81, in other words,
not within the limits Of any Of the
railroad districts, would be an anon
ally.
Holding Act So itself to be invalid,
any examination Of the legality Of
election held under it becomes
s~uperAuous.
II il therefore ordered, adiudged
and deereed that the said Act No.
50 of the General Assembly Of 1908,
approved June %, 1908, be and is
declared to be unconstitu- !
and it and the election held !
inder its provisions on April 18th,
1908, to be null and void and IF ito :
force and effect. And that the in ]
~5ervenors. Theodore Coreil, o. q.
5uillory, Rene L. Derouen and Ar I
nand Coreil, pay the costs Of this ;
luit. !