St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1910-01-22
LEAKY ON THREE POINTS
Is the nti-Divisonists Say this Ends Fight,
While Diyisionists Say to the
Contrary-The Decision.
for Creation Of Evangeline.

it does not follow that in an a tiele.
purporting to deal with the subject.
Of the changing of parish lines, the
subject of the creation of new par
ishes was intended to be covered.
Especially that, on reading Article
.277, 278 and 279, as they follow
each other, one cannot but be struck
by the studied care with which the
subjects with which they respectively
deal kave been kept apart; the first
dealing with the creation of a new
parish; the second, with the chang
ing of parish lines; and the third,
with the merging Of parishes. These
are different subjects; and not neces-
sarily related; however true it may
be that, as an incident to the crea-
alton Of a new parish, parish lines
will be changed. Also, it is note
worthy that although parish lines
are changed when parishes are
merged, yet Art. 279 allows merger
to take place BY mere majority
vote Of that one Of the parishes
which is to be dissolved, SO that,
even is articles 277, 278 and 279
were held to be in pari materia, il
would not be true to say that the
constitution desires that there should
tbe tWo-thirds vote for every
change of parish lines without ex
4 eeption. We conclude that Art 27s
| has no application to the creation o
new parishes. We are fortified il
that view by q decision Of the Su
preme Court Of Maryland which, deal
ing with practically the same ques
tiion. reached a like conclusion
Daily vs. Morgan. Z. R. A. II 5.
A more serious objection to sal
/ Act So is that, at the same sessiol
eff the legislature at which it wa
adopted, another act was adopte
j which can not co-exist with it unde
J the constitution. We refer to Ac
! 1T, approved July 3, 1908, creatinI
4 the parish Of La Sale. Art. l8 .
. the constitution requires each paris
to have at least one representative
n the lower house OF the General Al
{ semhly, and fixes the membership {
= said house at not more" than III
E Now, at the time said two acts 5
8 and TT were running together befoi
Q the legislature and at the time
il their adoption, this quota of II
e representatives was full within OF
e representative. It was therefore II
n possible for the legislature to creai
i more than one parish; for, under sa
k Art. 18, as was held by this court
ID the case Of Adam vs.. Forsyth, "a A
le l30, wherein was involved the a
IL tempted creation Of the Parish
IS Troy it is impossible for the legisl
ture to create a parish without
le representative in the legislator
j. Under these circumstances, the on
Il question must be as to which one
" the said two acts must yield to t
9 other. The answer is that Act
g must yield, because Act 1T is I
o. later act, and repeals all laws a
parts of laws in conflict with itse
ye Act 53 is in conflict, since both az
ot cannot co-exist under the constlt
h tion.
n In support of the validity Of 4
ly So, it is said that at the time 1t
le came a law it was not amendabie
a. the present objection, because at Il
ey time Act TT had not yet be
en- adopted; and that it will not be amer
de able to said objection by the time
be goes into effect, (which will not
&c before 1912, because by that ii
en- the legislature of 1910 will have n
be and will have reapportioned the rep
oh sentatives and provided Evangel
y. with its just quota of representatl
IT, To the first part of this argumt
'e- the answer is that the action Of
he legislature itself ar the same sess
ch destroyed the act by making it 40
MT luteIy imperative under the cons
he tuition. II is not more possible
ge the legislature to create new par
he without representation in view OF Z
III. 18 Of the constitution, then il wo
mt be to create one without terrific
t hence, the assignment to another T
his ish Of the only representative Wh
to was available for Egangeline was ]
re- as fatal to the validity Of said
ity So would have been the assignm
at, to another parish Of the territ
ar
ct, Continued on page q