State ex rel. Woodruff v. Dortch

• Decision Date: 01 October 1889
• Docket Number: 255
• Citation: 41 La.Ann. 846,6 So. 777
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE EX REL. WOODRUFF ET AL. v. E. S. DORTCH, PRESIDENT POLICE JURY OF BOSSIER PARISH ET AL

6 So. 777

41 La.Ann. 846

THE STATE EX REL. WOODRUFF ET AL. v. E. S. DORTCH, PRESIDENT POLICE JURY OF BOSSIER PARISH ET AL

No. 255

Supreme Court of Louisiana

October 1, 1889

APPEAL from the Second District Court, Parish of Bossier. Boone, J.

Alexander & Blanchard, Land & Land and Joannes Smith, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Watkins & Watkins and Young & Thatcher, for Defendants and Appellees.

OPINION

FENNER, J.

Under Section 5 of Act 33 of 1888 (which act has been fully analyzed and interpreted in our opinion rendered at this term in the case of Mobley et al. vs. Police Jury) an election was held, on November 23, 1888, to determine whether the town of Haughton or the town of Benton should become the parish seat of Bossier parish. Section 6 of the act provided that the commissioners, to hold such election should be appointed by the police jury, and should make their returns to said jury, and it was made the duty of the said jury to proclaim the result of the election within five days after holding the same, and it was also made the duty of the president of the police jury to declare the place, so found to have received a majority of votes, to be the parish seat of Bossier parish.

The election has been held; the commissioners have made their returns to the police jury, and other proceedings have been had, culminating in a declaration by the president of the police jury that the town of Haughton has received a majority of votes and is the parish seat.

The present action is brought by a number of citizens and taxpayers residing in and near the town of Benton, who aver that each of them holds property which will be increased in value to an amount exceeding $ 2000 in case the parish seat be established at said town. They allege that Benton received a large majority of the votes cast at the election; that the commissioners of elections at certain polling places stuffed the ballot boxes and made false and fraudulent returns; and that, upon a proper purging of said fraudulent votes and returns, the town of Benton will be found to have been legally chosen as the parish seat and entitled to be so declared.

Their action is brought against the town of Haughton and the president and members of the police jury, and they pray for "judgment decreeing that the town of Benton received a majority of the legal votes cast at said election on November 23, 1888, and in the parish seat of Bossier parish, and further decreeing that said police jury proclaim the result of said election, and said president declare the town of Benton to be the parish seat of Bossier parish, pursuant to said judgment; and they further pray that the court examine the facts and decide them according to the law and equity of the case; and for general relief, etc."

We have quoted this prayer in extenso for the purpose of exhibiting unmistakably the scope and character of the relief sought, which requires the court to go behind the returns of the commissioners of election; to recount the votes; to hear evidence and cast out such votes as it finds to be illegal or to exclude entirely returns which it finds to be false; to tabulate the returns as expurgated by the court; to ascertain and declare the return of the election; and to compel the police jury and its president to make proclamation in accordance with the judgment.

Several exceptions were filed by defendants of which one lies at the threshold of the proceeding and must be primarily determined.

This is the exception that the issue presented is not one of judicial cognizance, and that, in the absence of statutory authorization, courts are without jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain a contest of an election.

It is admitted that there is no statutory authority authorizing the courts of this State to entertain jurisdiction of a contest of such an election as the one here concerned. The Legislature has provided for judicial security of elections in certain cases, and the provisions are found in the Revised Statutes, Sections 1417 to 1435. A reference to them will show that they refer exclusively to elections for office and for certain designated offices. They contain nothing which by any stretch of construction, could be held to cover an election of the character here involved.

As long ago as 1858, this court emphatically laid down the doctrine on this subject in the following language:

"The contesting of votes is not a judicial function, only so far as made such by special statutes. Indeed, some have gone so far as to question whether this is not wholly a matter of administration which cannot with propriety be referred to the judicial tribunals at all. At any rate, it is clear that such tribunals cannot usurp any greater control over this business than is specially imposed on them by law. In the absence of a statutory authorization, they are without jurisdiction of the matter ratione materiae. The consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction, and all courts, before whom such an unauthorized controversy is brought, must decline, ex officio, to render any order which would recognize a right to sustain the case." State vs. Judge, 13 Ann. 89.

During the...