The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1916-12-16
UPHOLDS ACT TO ENLARGE JURY
Measure Declared Constitutional by Judge Workman in
Lengthy Decison-Full Text Of Courts Opinion and
Judgment ON Exceptions and Motions in Suit to Enjon
Governors Appointees from Acting.

The parish of Ascension is diqide
into eight police jury wards, fror
each of which heretofore one polio
juror for the parish has been elected
By Act 100 of 1916 the Legislature
provided that wards seven and eigh
should have each an additional polio
juror, and that until the next genera
state election the two additional mem
bers should be appointed by the gov
ernor.
Under this act the governor of tn,
state appointed Messrs. Gonzales ant
Dixon, two of the defendants, to fiji
the positions created by said act, ant
Issued commissions to them as such ap
pointees.
Thereupon four members of tn.
Ascension police jury bring this suit
making defendants the two appoint
ees and the other four members OF
that body; the object of the suit being
to enjoin said two appointees from
acting as members of the police jury
and the other four members of that
body from recognizing them as such
The basis of the suit is, of course
the unconstitutionality of said Act
1870 Of 1916. "
The first exception on ens part OF
defendants is to the jurisdiction OF
the court ratione materiae This plea
is especially aimed at the power of
this court to issue the preliminary in
junction granted herein, and is based
upon the decision of the supreme
court in State VS.. Judge, 48 A. 1916,
affirming State VS.. Judge, At A. SO;
and II A. 81.
But in Jackson VS.. Powell, 119 La.
S82, it is distinctly held, after re-
view of the authorities, that the mem
bers Of a school board have the right
to protect their possession of the Of
flee by injunction against appointees
of the governor If this is true, it is
equally clear that they can protect
their possession against a partial GUS
ter which would take place if addi-
tional members were added to the
board If a board is composed of
eight, each member constitutes one
eighth thereof. II it is composed of
ten, each member constitutes only
one-tenth. 1t is therefore clear that
an addition of members to any board
is q partial custer of the power and
authority of each member of the
board.
In the 48th Annual case, supra, the
suit was brought by the district attor-
ney, not by incumbents seeking to
protect their possession from total or
partial custer, as is the case here.
The court thinks therefore that it has
Jurisdiction Of the subject matter, and
that the proceeding by injunction was
proper, provided the act of 1916 is
unconstitutional as alleged.
The next exception is to the utter
want of interest in the plaintiffs to
maintain the suit. This has already
been touched upon in discussing the
plea to the jurisdiction, supra.
If the act of 1916 is unconstitution-
al, and the two members have no right
to sit upon the police jury, and if one
half of the members of the present
jury are in favor of seating the new
members, then the remaining mem
bers have not only the right and in
terest to do so, but are performing a
public duty in suing to protect from
intrusion the power and authority
lawfully delegated to them.
It is evident that the party most
the parish of Ascension,
cannot act in the matter, since it's po-
lice jury, the only agency through
which it could act, is evenly divided !;
and then the very question to be de-
cided is, which body of men, the small
er or the increased beso~'1eesa85hst hstitute
the lawful police jury OF the parish.
Evidently, the executive depart
ment of the state would not act in the
matter, since it's head, the governor,
was the chief actor in the alleged lille
gal acts complained of.
It may not be true that sFor every
wrong there is remedy" but it is
the policy of the law to provide if pos
sible remedy for every wrong. If
the four plaintiffs have not an inter-
est to bring this suit, it is difficult to
see who could have sufficient interest
to bring it. I believe they have suf-
fcient interest to satisfy the law in
this respect.
The only remaining exception tc be
disposed of is that of no cause of ac-
ton, which puts squarely up 20 the
court the decision of the question of
whether Act 100 Of 1916 is constitu-
tional Or not.
The legislature in the state is su-
preme, except as limited by the consti-
tutions, state and federal. One al
leging the unconstitutionality Of a
state statute must point to the par
ticular provision violated, and every
doubt must be resolved in favor OF
the constitutionality of the statute
State VS.. Michel, 121 La. 375.
1t is alleged in the petition that the
act in question violates Articles |, 2
Is, 81, 48 and 49 of our state consti.
tuition, and the 14th amendment to the
federal constitution.
In the case of some Of these arti
cles the claim that the act violates
them seems far-fetehed, but we vii
notice them seriatim.
AS to Art. l, the act, like every
other statute, was passed by the leg
islature, elected by the people, anc
thus, like all other laws, originated
with the people. That it was passec
"for the good of the whole" ito Sc
cure justice" and promote the inter
est and happiness of the people" mus
be presumed. 1t is not within the pro
vince Of the courts to inquire into the
justice, wisdom or policy of statute
so long as there is no infringement Of
any constitutional provision. MOI
can the purpose or motive of the leg
islature be inquired into. McCray VS.
u. s., 1875 u. S. 27; / A. & E. Ann
EE1 ET0