Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

from the arbitrary decision of the commissioner who is not a judicial officer and is one upon whom judicial power cannot be conferred.67

§ 201. Delegation to Police Juries-Ferries, Bridges and Roads. Police juries throughout the State of Louisiana have plenary powers with respect to the establishment of public ferries, bridges and roads, and with respect to their abandonment or discontinuance, and may, in their discretion, convert a free bridge or road into a toll bridge or road and vice versa, and may operate a toll bridge or road directly or through their lessees; it may also restrain by injunction the operation of a free ferry or bridge within the prohibited distance from a public toll bridge prescribed by statute or ordinance.68 Such juries may also exercise their discretion to establish a toll road upon the site of a free road or elsewhere, and may build, maintain and operate such roads, or do so by contract with corporations or individuals, nor will the exercise of such discretion be interfered with by the courts except in case it has been grossly abused. So a police jury has the power or right to offer a ferry privilege and to have it adjudicated at public auction, and irregularities or illegalities in the manner of

69

67 Bridge Street & Allendale Gravel Road Co. v. Hogadone (Mich., 1908), 114 N. W. 917, 14 Det. Leg. N. 858; Besson v. Crapo Toll Road Co. (Mich., 1908), 114 N. W. 924, 14 Det. Leg. N. 858. See § 172, herein.

68 Police Jury of Lafourche v. Robichaux, 116 La. 286, 40 So. 705, reaffirming St. Joseph Plank Co. v. Kline, 106 La. 325, 30 So. 854; Blanchard v. Abraham, 115 La. 989, 40 So. 379.

The police juries of the several parishes are vested by statute with the exclusive right to establish, lease,

and regulate ferries and bridges

juries have also the power to prohibit by ordinance the operation of unlicensed ferries and bridges within competitive distance; nor has any person the legal right to construct a pontoon ferry bridge across a navigable stream without special legislative authority, state or Federal. Blanchard v. Abraham, 115 La. 989, 40 So. 379, holding also that Act No. 202, p. 391 of 1902, relative to the powers of police juries throughout the State (the parish of Orleans excepted), is not a local or special law in the sense of article 48 of the state constitution.

69 St. Joseph Plank Road Co v. within their respective limits; such Kline, 106 La. 325, 30 So. 854.

exercising the right which that body has to confer, may be ratified, or may be cured by estoppel.70

§ 202. Delegation of Power by Municipality.-A state government may delegate to a municipal corporation part of its own powers. But such powers cannot be delegated or vicariously exercised unless the authority to delegate is spe-, cially granted by the legislature, nor can the municipal corporation divest itself of the discretion vested by the statute."1

$203. Delegation by Ordinance to Street Commissioner.The requirement of a general ordinance requiring permission of the street commissioner for the opening of streets and public places is proper and not subject to the objection that it is a delegation of power to an officer not authorized, as it does not empower the street commissioner to grant the right to open the street, but merely requires a written permit from him, otherwise such opening is forbidden.72

Prince v. Police Jury of Concordia Parish, 112 La. 257, 36 So. 342.

809, 11 So. 36 (a case of police regulation of private markets).

72 Stowe v. Kearny, 72 N. J. L.

11 State v. Garibaldi, 44 La. Ann. 106, 59 Atl. 1058.

[blocks in formation]

205. Construction-Intent-Effect § 217. Contemporaneous Construc

[blocks in formation]

§ 204. Interpretation or Construction-Generally.-The courts of the United States are bound to take notice of the Constitution. It is paramount to the power of the legislature.

Every act of Congress, and every statute repugnant thereto is void from the beginning and without life or operation; such act or statute cannot become a law. The policy of constitutional provisions is not a guide to the determination of constitutional questions, for they must rest upon the provisions themselves of the Constitution, and the courts possess no control over matters of mere policy; the jurisdiction of the courts extends only to the construction and enforcement of the Constitution and laws as they exist. Although the Federal Constitution embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred, still it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted. It may be generally stated that such rules of construction as have been established in relation to statutes are also applicable to constitutions. To this rule · there are, however, certain exceptions or qualifications.

3

5

§ 205. Construction-Intent-Effect Given to Every Part -Ordinary Signification of Words-Grammatical Construction. The purpose of interpretation or construction of a constitution is, if possible, to ascertain the intent, so that the instrument may effectuate such intent. The only proper

1Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 U. S.), 137, 2 L. ed. 60. See also Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 30 L. ed. 178, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121; Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. [2 U. S. (C. C.)] 304, 320, 1 L. ed. 391, Fed. Cas. No. 16,857; Seneca Min. Co. v. Osman, 82 Mich. 573, 47 N. W. 25, 9 L. R. A. 770; Minnesota Sugar Co. v. Iverson, 90 Minn. 6, 97 N. W. 454; State, Smyth, v. Moores, 55 Neb. 480, 41 L. R. A. 624, 76 N. W. 175; Heyman, Ex parte (Tex. Cr. App.), 78 S. W. 349.

2 Grand Island & Northern Wyoming Rd. Co. v. Baker, 6 Wyo. 369, 378, 34 L. R. A. 835, 45 Pac. 494.

3 South Carolina v. United States,

[blocks in formation]

way to construe a constitution is to consider first, the language used as being the best evidence of the intention; and the interpretation should, if possible, be such that force and effect shall be given to every part or provision thereof, and to each word, unless it would lead to a conclusion absurd in itself, or to one necessarily repugnant to the plain meaning of the instrument; and such provisions and parts should be made to harmonize, if by any reasonable construction it can be done.? The evil intended to be remedied should also be considered."

'Funkhouser v. Spahr, 102 Va. 306, 46 S. E. 378; State, Chamberlin, v. Daniel, 17 Wash. 111, 116, 49 Pac. 243.

See also the following cases: Arkansas: Hawkins v. Filkins, 24 Ark. 286; State v. Ashley, 1 Pike (1 Ark.), 513.

California: Marye v. Hart, 76 Cal. 291, 293, 18 Pac. 325; Miller v. Dunne, 72 Cal. 462, 14 Pac. 27; Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 161; Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 293.

Colorado: People, Livesay, v. Wright, 6 Colo. 92. Examine Denver Circle R. Co. v. Nester, 10 Colo. 403, 15 Pac. 715.

New York: People v. Fancher, 50 N. Y. 288.

Oregon: Acme Dairy Co. v. City of Astoria (Oreg., 1907), 90 Pac. 153. South Carolina: Norton v. Bradham, 21 S. C. 375, 382.

Effect must be given to each word. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 87,* 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. 747, per White, J.; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. (39 U. S.) 540, 570, 10 L. ed. 579, per Taney, C. J.; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. (25 U. S.) 213, 316, 6 L. ed. 606, per Trimble, J., in dissenting opinion. See Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. (22 U. S.) 738, 851, 6 L. ed. 204, per

Georgia: Examine Paddleford v. Marshall, C. J. Savannah, 14 Ga. 438.

All other provisions relating to sub

Illinois: Beardstown v. City of ject are to be considered. Tazewell Virginia, 76 Ill. 34. v. Herman (Va., 1908), 60 S. E. 767.

Kentucky: Louisville School Board v. King (Ky., 1908), 107 S. W. 247.

Louisiana: Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Railroad Commission (La., 1908), 45 So. 598; Decklar v. Frankenberger, 30 La. Ann. 410.

Maryland: Dyer v. Bayne, 54 Md. 87, 100; Picking v. State, 26 Md. 503; Manley v. State, 7 Md. 135.

Minnesota: Minnesota & Pacific Rd. Co. v. Sibley, 2 Minn. 13. Mississippi: Examine Green v. Weller, 32 Miss. 652.

Provisions are not to be segregated and considered separately, but all provisions are to be brought together and so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286, 328, 48 L. ed. 448, 24 Sup. Ct. 269, per White, J., in dissenting opinion; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 312, 45 L. ed. 1088, 21 Sup. Ct. 770, per White, J.

Louisville School Board v. King (Ky., 1908), 107 S. W. 247.

« ZurückWeiter »