State v. Billhartz
Decision Date | 03 November 1919 |
Docket Number | 23427 |
Citation | 84 So. 120,146 La. 855 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. BILLHARTZ. In re BILLHARTZ |
Conviction and sentence annulled, and defendant discharged.
Alfred J. Bonoma and R. A. Dowling, both of New Orleans, for applicant.
Chandler C. Luzenberg, Dist. Atty., J. Arthur Charbonnet, Asst. Dist Atty., and Walter L. Gleason, Sp. Counsel Sewerage and Water Board, all of New Orleans (Edgar H. Bloch, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
Statement of the Case.
The resolution thus referred to reads as follows:
Defendant filed a demurrer, which having been overruled, he was tried and convicted, and was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment, and he thereupon appealed to the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans, where the conviction and sentence were affirmed. He then obtained from this court a writ of certiorari, and the record has been sent up, to the end that those rulings may be here reviewed, quoad the questions of law involved therein.
Changing somewhat their order as stated in the demurrer, and condensing them, the grounds therein set up are, in substance, as follows:
(1) That the statute (Act 270 of 1908) and resolution, which are said to authorize this prosecution, involve the grant to, and exercise by, the sewerage and water board of legislative powers which it was incompetent for the General Assembly to delegate to that board; that they impair the obligations of contracts, devest vested rights, and, under pretext of a lawful exercise of the police power, operate as an unreasonable, unnecessary, and unlawful abuse of that power.
(2) That they purport to deprive defendant of his liberty, by compelling him to drink river water, as furnished to him, and preventing him from keeping, drinking, or using rain water, and to authorize the taking and damaging of his property without due process of law, and without adequate compensation, in contravention of both state and federal Constitutions.
(3) That they contravene the health ordinances of the city of New Orleans and of the state and parish boards of health.
Opinion.As the affidavit upon which the prosecution is based sets up the resolution of the board as its immediate authority, and sets up Acts 6 of 1899 and 270 of 1908, as the authority for the resolution, it will conduce to a better understanding of the case to consider the demurrer in connection with the following resume of the history and textual provisions of those statutes, to wit:
In April, 1899, the requisite number of property tax payers of New Orleans petitioned the mayor and council of that city to call an election upon the question of levying a special tax, and the funding of the same into bonds, the proceeds of which were to be devoted (1) to the acquisition (by construction, purchase, or both) of a system of waterworks, the extension thereof, and the purification of the water supply therefrom; (2) the construction of a free sewerage system and free water therefor; and (3) the completion of the public drainage system, then in process of construction. The petitioner also prayed that, "when said tax is voted, the council will organize a sewerage and water board * * * for the purpose of constructing, controlling, maintaining, and operating said water and sewerage system," and further prayed that there should be submitted, at the election, not only the questions of the levying of the tax and the issuance of the bonds, but also the question of the manner of the selection of the commissioners to constitute the board to be organized for the purpose or purposes above stated. The election was accordingly held on June 6, 1899; the proposition to levy the tax, etc., was sustained; the electors, presumably expressed themselves in regard to the selection of the commissioners; and, on June 22, the tax was levied. In order, however, to make effective, in all respects, the action so taken, it was necessary to obtain a ratification thereof by constitutional amendment, and the General Assembly (having been convened on August 8, 1899, in extra session) passed the Act No. 6 of 1899, which by joint resolution (of the same session), was proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, adopted at the general election held in the month of April following. The act in question, after other provisions, declares:
etc. (as requested by the electors).
Other sections provide for the officers, employes, and meetings of the board, and confer certain powers incidental and necessary to the purposes for which it was organized. Section 20 declares:
Section 21 declares:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Porterie v. Walmsley
...and the 2-mill tax voted for the purpose of sewerage and water systems of New Orleans will be found in the opinion and in State v. Billhartz, 146 La. 855, 84 So. 120. advocating the constitutionality of the statute argue that the taxpayers' petition with its conditions or limitations was ma......
-
State ex rel. Porterie v. Walmsley
...127 La. 685, 53 So. 926; New Orleans Taxpayers' Protective Association v. Sewerage & Water Board, 132 La. 839, 61 So. 843; State v. Billhartz, 146 La. 855, 84 So. 120; Realty Owners' Protective Alliance v. City of New Orleans, 165 La. 159, 115 So. 444. Relying upon this settled jurisprudenc......
-
La Nasa v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 2128
... ... However, this act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Billhartz. 1 ... Counsel for the defendant argues that it would be highly impractical to administer a city-wide water service if ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bailey v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans
...and background of and the purposes for which the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans was constituted may be found in State v. Billhartz, 146 La. 855, 84 So. 120, 121, 'In April, 1899, the requisite number of property tax payers of New Orleans petitioned the mayor and council of that city ......