"A constitutional convention is not a
co-ordinate branch of the government,
but is a body of representatives of the
people convened only on special occa-
sion, and for the purpose of revising or
framing a Constitution. The powers it
has are usually expressly conferred upon
it, together with such implied powers
as may be necessary to carry into effect
those expressly conferred. The author-
ity of the constitutional convention to
pass ordinances, which are temporary
enactments, and give them validity, as
a rule, depend upon the powers con-
ferred upon them by the law which
authorizes their assemblage. Where it is
not provided that the convention shall
have the power of independent legis-
lation, the validity of such ordinances
depends on their submission to the peo-
ple and their ratification in due form.
Quintan v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 89
Tex. 356, 34 S.W. 738 (1896). The
power, though, of the convention of
1875 to deal by ordinance with neces-
sary incidental legislation without sub-
mission for adoption to a popular vote,
appears, it is believed, clear and unmis-
takable."
Louisiana cases.
Under the Louisiana Constitution,
which contained no provision relative to
the calling of a constitutional conven-
tion,15 the restrictions imposed upon
the powers of a constitutional conven-
tion by the terms of a statute calling
such convention, which had been rati-
fied by a vote of the people, have been
held valid and hence provisions in the
new Constitution which violated the
mandate in the statute have been held
15 See State v. American Sugar Ref. Co. 137
La. 407, 68 So. 742 (1915), where it was
said: "None of the Constitutions of the State
of Louisiana contain provisions relative to
conventions of the people, except the Consti-
tution of 1812."
|
invalid in a number of cases. State v.
American Sugar Ref. Co., supra; Foley
v. Democratic Parish Committee, 138
La. 220, 70 So. 104 (1915); Hayme v.
Assessor, 143 La. 697, 79 So. 280 (1918)
(recognizing rule) ; Wunderlich v. New
Orleans R. & Light Co., 145 La. 21, 81
So. 741 (1919); Sheridan v. Washing-
ton Parish, 145 La. 403, 82 So. 386
(1919); Re Perez, 146 La. 373, 83 So.
657 (1920).
Thus, a provision in the new Consti-
tution which required that the members
of the board of assessors should be
elected at the same time as the parochial
officers of the City of New Orleans was
held to be invalid in Foley v. Demo-
cratic Parish Committee, 138 La. 220,
70 So. 104 (1915), as in violation of
express prohibitions, in the statute call-
ing the constitutional convention, of the
enactment of any article or ordinance
with respect to any public board or com-
mission of the state or any political sub-
division thereof, and with respect to
registration or elections.
Similarly, a provision in the new Con-
stitution which, as invoked by the plain-
tiff, would have conferred upon the dis-
trict attorney for the Parish of Orleans
a duty, theretofore not imposed upon
him, to represent the state in civil suits,
was held to be invalid in State v. Amer-
ican Sugar Ref. Co., 137 La. 407, 68 So.
742 (1915), as in violation of an express
prohibition in the statute calling the
constitutional convention, of the enact-
ment of any article or ordinance chang-
ing the duties or increasing the author-
ity of any public officer. The court
quoted from 6 R.C.L. 27 Constitutional
Law § 18 (see 11 Am. Jur. 631 Constitu-
tional Law § 27) as follows: "When the
people, acting under a proper resolution
of the legislature, vote in favor of calling
a constitutional convention, they are
351
|
