The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1912-08-10

secretary, Tx the latter'S salary. etc.,
and that it might with equal force
be held that the election of these
officers and all the other acts Of the
/ board at its first meeting were to
be permanent and never subject to
change. A mere reading of this law,
/ the order and arrangement of the
subjects treated In the different Sec
4 tions, will expose the fallacy of
j this conclusion. Section 3 provides
for the organization of the board
and sets out in detail every act
which the commissioners shall per-
form at their first meeting, and each
one of these acts is inherent in
every board which manages or di-
rects the affairs of corporation,
such as the election Of officers and
fixing the time and place (the build
ing or office), for holding meetings.
4 Section on the other hand deals
with powers that are vested exclu-
slvely in the sovereign which creates
corporations, to-Wit::s corporate ex-
1stence, authority to sue and be sued,
name or style, manner of serving
process, and domicile While the
general assembly did delegate to
i the board the power to fix it's domi-
Gle, an act which belongs to and
is always exercised by the power
creating corporations, why did it ex-
pressly say that this was to be done
at it's first regular meeting? Evil
4 IDENTITY because when that act was
once performed at this first regular
meeting, there was an end to it,
I II the general assembly had in
tended that the commissioners were
4 to forever exercise the right of fix
ing the domicile of the board, it
would have done so, considering how
extraordinary and unusual such a
privilege would be, in language that
could not be mfsinterpreted. If the
donicile once fixed could be changed
i by the board on one occasion, it
could be changed twice, it could be
changed yearly, monthly, or weekly.
Can any one seriously contend that
| the legislature ever contemplated
any such possible condition of af-
j fairs? am of the option that the
legal domieile of the Lafcurche basin
4 leVae board is still at Donaldsonville,
in the parish of ascension z
The case was appealed to the SUI
Preme court, but on appeal the leVee
/ board waived all question of jurisdic-
I ton, as will be seen by the follow
i ing extract from the opinion of JUS
tice Breaux, reported in 110 La. Re
4 ports, at page 772, in the case of De-
hon VS.. Lafourche levee board S
We will stop for a moment before
i regularly taking up the issues of
: the case TO mention that tie
question of jurisdiction raised by
] defendants is eliminated from the
case by the expressed abandonment
of that issue in open court by coun-
sci for defendants, by whom the is.
i sue had been raised. .
The decision of Judge Leche, rem
dered March Is, 1903, is therefore res
adjudicata on the question of the
legal domicile Of the Lafourchd leVee.
i board.
More than this. Since that deci-
sion the legislature has absolutely
refused to change the donicile from
DonaldsonYflle to Gretna
In 1904 Senator Brady, who was at
j that time also a member of the La
fourche levee board, introduced a.
bill in the senate which had for its
sole object the amending Of section
3 of act No. f13 of 1892 so as to fix
/ the domicile of the board at Gretna.
| The bill, known as senate bill No.
I62.. passed the senate, but when it
1 reached the house it failed to pass
on June 20, 1904, and again on June
80, 1904, as will appear by reference
| to the official Journal of the house.
/ of representatives, at pages 644 and
! 65s
BY introducing this bill, Senator
4 Brady of the board recognized that
the domicile was In Donaldsonville.
as fixed by the board in 1893 and
as decreed in 1903 by solemn judg-
ment of the court.
Z. H Marrero, Jr., the then attor-
ney of the Lafourche leyee board,
was in 1904 also a member of the
house and fathered the Brady bill
in the house, for it was on his n}es
ton that the bill was Eeeonsfdered
on June 50, 1904. and on his motion
the bill finally failed to pass.
The situation as it stands today,
then, is that the legal domfcile Of
/ the board is in DonaldsQnviIle, where
L III WaS C0Llu1t0iIGA DS - iC5OAlAAoiA "
the board when the board first or
/ ganized. The courts have, on the
plea presented by the board itself
recognized Donaldsonville as the
domicile, and the general assembly, !,
on the attempt Of the board itself
j to have the domicila changed, re.
j fused to do So
The governor should insist that
i i the board hold its meetings at its
j fRomiclle, and the members should
aiafnse to sit at any place other than
he hdomIei1e which has been estab-
Ilissites by law and recognized by the
couitha
vas ----------------
/ Wharpsuality and price are the
considerations, We believe it is to
your infthshst to let US figure on
your prinAsg. .
enllissIIa between motefeyc1e
and an autgahobiIe occurred on the
i West End shsl1read, New Orleans,
Monday night, July 49, and all OF the
yid 7f1nTnE or less