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

ana to provide for the
thereof"
Section 10 Of the act required the
Board Of Supervisors Of the parish Of
st. Landry, out Of whose territory
the new parish is TO be created :
TO hold an election TO take the
sense Of the legal voters of said par
ish ii regard to the creation of said
new parish. This election vas held
on April l3, 1909. The present suit
is brought by our taxpayers, resi-
dents Of, and owning property in,
that portion Of the parish Of st.
Landry not to be included in the new
parish, to have said Act So declared
to be unconstitutional, and said cleo
tion decreed to have been illegal and
null, and the proclamation OF the
Governor declaring the parish Of
Eyangeline TO have been created, to
be null and Of no effect. The parties
made defendant are the Governor OF
the State and the Board Of Super
Evisors Of Election Of the parish Of
LIST. Landry. Certain citizens Of the
proposed new parish have interyened,
and ii IS they who have defended the
suit and are the real litigants. The
defendants made no appearance.
Plaintiffs are appellants. The inter
lyenors and appellees have moved 10
dismiss the appeal on the ground
that this court is without jurisdiction
Iof the case, there not being an
amount Of $4,000 involved, and the
case not presenting any Of the spe-
cia1 features which would give this
court jurisdiction irrespective OF
| amount involved.
The petition contains the following
/ iurisdictional allegation:
THAT petitioners have material
Interest in contesting said election
1 because they each have considerable
/ real estate and other property IN the
9ICity Of Opelousas which would be
greatly diminished in value were
1 this parish to be divided as proposed.
We think this allegation has beer
fully sustained BY proof. Each q
!, the plaintiffs testifes that his prop
erty in the town of 0pelousas, th'
county seat Of St. Landry, would bt
j diminished exceeding $4,000. Fhesl
witnesses have testified from thel
/ kno ledge of the situation. In tn
. absence Of contrary evidence, tn
D testimony is conclusive. Far fror
) finding such diminution in value i'm
! possible, we should incline to thin
) that some diminution in value woul
be highly probable, and that tn
& amount named might not be at q
I impossible. The motion to dlsmis
is therefore overruled.
I The first ground upon which II
! constitutioualitY Of said Act SO Is a:
. sailed is that it proposes to chang
4 the line Of the parish Of St. Landr
L by a mere majority vote Of the elet
tors of the parish when by Art. ~
j Of the Constitution a vote Of tWt
d thirds is required for that purpose.
Art. 278 speaks only Of the chang
a Of parish lines; but since it is NJ
i possible to create a new parish witt
d out changing lines, because the ei
Ie tire territory Of the State IS alreae
il divided into parishes, plaintiffs argt
j. that the article applies to the ere
tion Of new parish; otherwise, tbs
II saw. an exception would be write
5e into the article; and it would be mat
j. to read that a two-third votes Of tt
electors should be required to chanf
IF parish lines in all cases except wht
,c the lines are to be changed by Il
D. creation Of new parish, in whit
T. case no vote at all shall be necessar
s Plaintiffs also argue that the const
se tntion caulI hardly require a tw
thirds vote Of the electors for T
hit mere change Of parish lines, viii
re- usually Involves but an insignifca
he extent IT territory, and leaves t
or IegisIatpfs free to cut off the lar
nt and fiir portion Of a parish, as in t
he instr case, without any vote at a
hp However strong this argume
r. may seem. the legislature has put
.ss different Interpretation upon Il
he article; and we are not prepared
I'M say that it has erred. Every Di
81 sumption is IN favor of the legal
of its action. While it is true thi
as the result Of creating new pi
of ish, parish lines will be changed, y