New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-11

bon d Of metropolitan Police 1or the
Metropolitan District of New Orleans,
In the United States Circuit Court yester.
day Judge Bradley delivered the following
decision:
The compainants in this case who are
engaged in the Live Stock Landing and
Saughterhouse business pray for an in
junction against the defendants, command
ing them to suspend AL proceedings against
1.-the complainants under and by virtue of an
act of the Legislature of Louisiana, passed
eighth March, 1869, giving to the corpora
ti0n, defendants. the exclusive right to erect
and have live stock landings and slaughter
houses in and about New Orleans, which act
the complainants allege TO be in violation OF
the civil rights bill. passed ninth April 1856,
and the first section of the fourteen h
amendment of the constitution OF the
United States; also, that the complainants
NAV be protected in their rights to perform
whatever may be lawful and proper IN this
behalf for auV citizen of the State to do, ill.,
Guiding the defendants, and that their right
| to slaughter, land, keep maintain and sell
animals for food, and, when prepared for
| market, to sell and dispose Of their meat,
subject to no condition more severe than
that of any other party, including the de-
fendants and that they be maintained in
their rights to construct all suitable build
ipgs. structures for landing, keeping and
preserving animals for sale or use that are
allowed to any other citizen of the State,
including the defendants.
The application brings up the question
| whether the civil rights bill applies to such
g. case as the present, and whether the
fourteenth amendment to the constitution
is intended to secure to the citizens of the
United States of all classes merely equal
rights; or whether it is intended to secure
to them any absolute rights? And if the
latter. whether the rights claimed by the
complainants in this bill are among the
number of such absolute rights?
Az to the civil rights bill, We are clearly
of opinion that it does not apply; that It
was intended merely 10 secure to citizens OF
every race and colOr the same civil righ s
and privileges ac are enjoyed by white citi-
zens; and not to enlarge or modify the
rights or privileges Of white citizens them
selves.
The fourteenth amendment is much
broader in its't terms, aud must be examined
with more attention and care.
The constitution of the Uoited States be-
fore the adoption of the recent amendments,
contained several provisions for the protec-
ton of the people in the enjoyment OF their
civil lights, liberties and privileges, some OF
which we're binding upon the government OF
the United States, and others upon the sew
eral States. Of the former kind were those
which declared, that the privilege OF the
writ of habeds corpus should not be sus.
pended, unless when in cases of rebellion
and invasion, the public safety should
require il; that no bill of attainder or erpost
fuctO law should be passed; that no Capita
ton or other direct tax shall be laid, unless
in proportion to the census; that the trial OF
AL crimes shall be by jury aud shall be held
in the s ate where committed; that no per
son shall be convicted of treason unless on
the testimony of two witnesses to the same
overt act or confession in open court; that
no attainder Of treason shall work corrup-
tion OF blood or forfeiture, except during the
life of the person attainted, etc.
Those binding on the States were, that no
State should make anything but gold and
silver coin a tender for payment OF debts;
nor pass any bill of attainder, er post tdcto
law. or law impairing the obligation of coz
tracts; or lay any imposts or duties on i'm
ports or exports except as provided in the
constitution; and that the citizens OF each
State shall be entitled to all privileges
and immunities of citizens in the several
States.
The latter class of provisions could not be
carried into effect by congressional legisla-
ton, and depended for their vindication
upon the voluntary action of the State
Legislature and such jurisdiction as the
courts of the United States might have
when q case arose in which one of these
rights was violated.
Since the breaking out of the late war
several amendments to the constitution
have been adopted, intended to protect the
citizen from oppression by means of State
legislation, and to confer upon Congress the
power, by appropriate legislation, to carry
the amendments into effect. Among these,
amendment fourteen declares that Ill per-
sons born or naturaliZed III the United
States aud subject to its jurisdiction are
citizens of the United States and Of the
State wherein they reside, and that no State
shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citi-
zens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life. liberty or
property without due process OF law; nor
deny to any person within its Jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
The new prohibition that 'no State
shall make or enforce any law which
shall abrdge the privileges or immu.
mites of citizens of the United
the constitution which declared that "the
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunlties OF citizens in the
several States"
1t is possible that those who framed the
article were not themselves aware of the
far reaching character of its terms. They
may have had in mind but one particular
phase of social and political wrong, which
they desired to redress. Yet, if the amend
ment, as framed and expressed does, in tact,
bear broader meaning and does extend
it's protecting shield over those who were
never thought of when it was conceived and
put in form, and does reach sucn social
evils which were never before prohibited
by constitutional enactment, 1t ls to be
presumed that the American people, in
giving it their imprimatur, understood what
they we're doing, and meant to decree what
has, IN fact, been done.
1t embraces much more: The 'Drivlleges
and immunities," secured by the original
constitution, were only such as each State
gave to It's own citizens. Each was pro-
hibited from discriminating in favor of it's
own citizens, and against the citizens of
other States.
But the fourteenth amendment prohibits
any State from abridging the privileges or
immunites Of the citizens OF the United
States, whether its own citizens or any
others. 1t not merely requires equality of
privileges, but il demands that the privileges
and immunities of all citizens shall be alb
solutely unabridged, unimpaired.
What, then. are the essential privileges
which belong to . citizen of the United
81 ates as such. and which State can not by
its laws invade, Itmay be difficult to emu
merate or define them. The Supreme Court
on O, g occasion, thought it unwIse to do SO,
us Howard 6Op. But SO far as relates to
the question ia hand, we may safely say that
it is one OF the privileges of every American
citizen to adopt and follow such lawful in
dustrial pursuit-not injurious to the com
munity-as he may zee fit, without un,
reasonable regulation or molestatlon, ana