State ex rel. Mouton v. Read

• Decision Date: 12 August 1897
• Docket Number: 12,577
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE EX REL. MOUTON ET AL. v. S. D. READ, JUDGE AD HOC

22 So. 761

49 La.Ann. 1535

STATE EX REL. MOUTON ET AL. v. S. D. READ, JUDGE AD HOC

No. 12,577

Supreme Court of Louisiana

August 12, 1897

Submitted July 29, 1897

ON APPLICATION for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition.

Winston Overton, Chas. D. Caffery, Other C. Mouton, for Relator.

MILLER J. NICHOLLS, C.J., absent.

OPINION

MILLER J.

The relators allege that they were candidates respectively for the office of mayor and councilmen of the city of Lafayette and were duly elected at the election of 5th May last; that their election is contested by William Campbell and other candidates for the same offices to which they claim to have been elected; that said contest is now pending before the District Court for the parish of Lafayette; the relators deny the jurisdiction of that court to determine the contest, and, their exceptions having been overruled, this application has been made by them for the writs of certiorari and prohibition, to restrain any further proceedings in the lower court in the suit of the contestants.

The relators urge that the jurisdiction to determine the right to office claimed by virtue of any popular election is purely statutory, and that there is no law vesting the District Court with power to entertain the suit now pending contesting the election of municipal officers of the city of Lafayette.

Our courts at an early period determined that statutory authority was essential for the judicial cognizance of suits contesting the right to office based upon popular elections. State ex rel. Foute vs. Tappan, 11 An. 187; State ex rel. Foulhouse vs. Judge, 12 An. 514; State ex rel Rousseau vs. Judge, 13 An. 89. The Revised Statutes, the law in force when these decisions were rendered, provided only for contests of election for the offices of clerk, sheriff, recorder, coroner and other parish offices. R. S., Secs. 1419, 1421. The Legislature, by Act No 24 of 1877, re-enacted section 1419, changing the time within which the contesting petition was to be filed; provided also for the contests of State officers and made other changes. The legislative act, No. 24 of 1894, re-enacted the act of 1877 and enlarged the jurisdiction of the District Court for the district or parish in which the election was held, so as to embrace contests for any parish, district, or municipal officer, claiming to be elected by the people. The suit now pending, the proceedings in which are sought to be restrained, is clearly embraced in this amendatory act of 1894, and to grant the writ we must reach the conclusion the act is unconstitutional and that there is no remedy of contesting the election to municipal office in the country parishes.

In support of their contention the relators invoke Art. 115 of the Constitution of 1868, under which the act of 1877 was passed. The article provides that no law shall be revived or amended by reference to its title, but the revived or amended act shall be published at length. The object of the article is that no reference to the amended act shall be requisite to trace and ascertain the change by the amendatory legislation, but that the amendment itself shall show the whole law on the subject, and additional provisions not in the amended act, if on the same subject, may be introduced in the amended act. Arnault vs. City of New Orleans, 11 An. 54; Walker vs. Caldwell, 4 An 297; Kohn vs. Mayor, etc., of Carrollton, 10 An. 719. The Act No. 24 of 1877 purports to amend and re-enact Secs. 1419 and 1421 of the Revised Statutes and to authorize contests of the election of State officers, and the sections are published at length. The Act No. 24 of 1894 purports to amend the act of 1877 and to authorize the contests of municipal offices, and the act as amended is published at length, embracing the added provision as to contests of election of municipal offices. In neither case is there the prohibited amendment merely by reference to the titles, but in both cases the act as amended is published at length We, therefore, find no repugnancy in the legislation of 1877 and 1894 to Art. 115 of the Constitution of 1868 or the corresponding Art. 30 of the present Constitution.

It is claimed too by the relators that the acts of 1877 and 1894 are violative of Art. 114 of the Constitution of 1868, and of Art. 29 of the present Constitution. The first article provided that the subject of every legislative act shall be expressed in its title; the last article includes this requirement and another that the act must embrace but one subject. The title of the act of 1877 refers to the sections of the Revised Statutes it proposes to amend, and expresses the further purpose to authorize contests of the election of State officers. The title of the act of 1894 is to amend and re-enact the act of 1877, and besides to authorize contests for municipal offices. It has long been settled that the constitutional requirement that the the title should express the subject of the act must be understood in a reasonable sense, and to exact more than an apt, however brief expression in the title would defeat the purpose of the Constitution. Municipality No. Three vs....