Case Name: Naturalization of Theodore Osthoff. Theodore Osthoff vs. A. V. Flotte, Clerk-Mandamus
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1896-06-15
Citations: 48 La. Ann. 1094
Docket Number: No. 12,129
Parties: Naturalization of Theodore Osthoff. Theodore Osthoff vs. A. V. Flotte, Clerk—Mandamus.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 1094–1096

Head Matter:
No. 12,129.
Naturalization of Theodore Osthoff. Theodore Osthoff vs. A. V. Flotte, Clerk—Mandamus.
The provisions in Act; No. 123 of 1880 that the clerk of the Civil District Court shall furnish copies of naturalization papers free of cost, when the originals are lost, is not repealed by the section of the Act No. 136 of same session (the fee bill) fixing the charge for copies furnished by the clerk. The fee bill is general in its operation and without effect to repeal the special legislation on this subject in the earlier act. Civil Code, Art. 23; 12 An. 498; 39 An. 513; and 9 An. 329.
The court applies our settled jurisprudence that the requirement of the Constitution, that the title of the act shall express its .object, is to be understood in a reasonable sense, and holds that the system of registration of voters includes, as an incident, the method of obtaining naturalization certificates; hence the provision that copies of such certificates, to enable the voter to register, shall be furnished by the clerk free of charge, is fairly within the title of the Act No. 123 of 1880, to provide the mode of registration of voters, etc. Const., Art. 29; 6 An. 805; 39 An. 329.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J.
Rogers & Dodds for Plaintiff, Appellee.
Denégre, Blair & Denégre for Defendant, Appellant.
Argued and submitted on briefs, June 6, 1896.
Opinion handed down June 15, 1896.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Miller, J.
This is an application for a mandamus to compel the clerk of the Civil District Oourt to issue, without charge, a copy of the naturalization papers of the relator, and the appeal is by the clerk, from a judgment making peremptory the mandamus.
The relator's reliance is on the 32d section of Act No. 123, p. 164, of 1880, which required the clerk to issue the copy on the application of the party, and without charge. The clerk bases his refusal on the subsequent Act No. 136 of 1880 authorizing the clerk to charge for copies generally.
The title of the Act No. 123 of 1880 is to provide a system of registration. It is minute in its provisions to- secure a correct registration, refers to certificates of naturalization to be produced as evidence of the right to register, and to this end requires copies to be furnished by the clerk when the originals are lost, and that no charge shall be made. It is contended the title to this act does not cover-the subject of the 32d section in reference to the furnishing of these copies. We think the method of registry, that the purpose of the act was to direct, would have been imperfect without providing for-obtaining the naturalization certificates, the evidences of citizenship, and the direction for copies without cost was within the scope of the title as an incident of the subject of the act. Const., Art. 29; Municipality No. 3 vs. Michoud, 6 An. 305; Succession of Lanzetti, 9 Án. 329; Succession of Aaron, 11 An. 671.
The other contention of the defendant is that the 32d section of Act No. 123 of 1880 is repealed by the Act No. 136 of 1880, the fee bill. The charge for copies generally, authorized by that act, is, in our view, not inconsistent with the special legislation in the previous ' act. A. general rule prescribed by a later statute is not accepted as manifesting any purpose to disturb the previously enacted special rule. In our view Sec. 32 of the Act 123 of 1880 is still in force, and hence the relator is entitled to the copy without charge. Civil Code, Art. 23; Succession of Fletcher, 12 An. 498; State vs. Slave Kitty, 12 An. 805; State vs. Labatut, 39 An. 513.
The judgment of the District Courtis therefore affirmed with costs.