New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-12
THE COURTS.
The Butchers and the SlaughterhOua
CompoAy-ApplicaiiO for Arrests.


ComPaAy-Applica.ion for Arrests
Yesterday Mr.. Paul Estaban appeared
before United States Commissioner Urban
and made the following affidavit:
State Of LOuisians, parish OF orleans
Before me, Commissioner or the Clrcult
Court of the United States, for taking bail
and sf6davits, and for the performance OF
other duties of Commissioner under the
laws of the United States, in and for the
District of Louisiana, under the act OF Con-
gress regulating the duties of Commits.
sioners, personally came Paul Estaban. a
citizen OF the United States, and residing
permanently in Louisiana, who maketh
oath, and saith that he is entitled to all the
rights described and set forth in an act
entitled IAN act to protect all persons in
their civil rights and furnish the means of
their vindication," passed by Congress
and which became law the ninth
day of April, 1866; that under color
entitled an act to protect the health
of the city of New Orleans, to locate the
Stock Landing and Slaughter. house Com
pany, and to incorporate the Crescent City
Live Stock Company, approved March s,
1868, he has been deprived OF the right to
bring into the city Of New Orleans and to
sell and convey his property, consisting of
animal meat prepared for market, IN.
less the same were slaughtered at the
slaughter houses of the corporation set
forth and desc ibed in the act aforesaid, in
accordance with the said act creating the
said corporation, and at no other place
within the city of New Orleans or parishes
of Jefferson, St. Bernard and Orleans, for
the enactment OF an Odious monopoly,
which has been granted to the said corpo-
ration, to the destruction OF the civil
rights of the citizens and residents OF the
United States to make contracts, sell, hold
and convey personal property. and
g.,n 49, I.xr 70,
secure and protect personal property IN the
State of Louisiana. This depOnent further
saith that Franklin j. Pratt, Charles A.
Weed, r. B. E5geworth, Algernon P. Bad
ger and William George, combining to-
gelher, did on or about the fourth or fifth
Of June, 1870, seize and hold with the in
tent to prevent the exercise of his civil
rights aforesaid, made color of the said act,
and to prevent him from exercising the said
civil rights and permanently to deprive him
of the civil rights aforesaid, q large guam.
tity of meat prepared for sale in the mar.
ket aforesaid because this deponent did not
and would not cause the same to be pre-
pared at the Slaughterhouse of the said cor
poration for the emolument of the same, for
the markets aforesaid.
And the said Paul Esteban, in conse-
Quence of the said illegal md unconstitu.
tional act of p parties aforesaid, has suf-
fered q loss OF property to above three hun
dred dollars, go seized held and destroyed
under and by virtue of the unconstitutional
act aforesaid, aud is hindered, obstructed
and prevented from exercising his legal
occupation of preparing animal food for
markets in New Orleans by Strengthening the
same in places not prohibited except in the
illegal and unconstitutional act aforesaid,
creating an odious monopoly in favor of the
said corporation.
Wherefore he prays a warrant for the
arrest of the persons aforesaid, who this de-
p0nent charges with the violation Of the
rights under the constitution and laws of
the United States made in this behalf for the
protection of the rights OF citizens and in
habitants of the United States, in order that
they may be compelled by law to respect
the same.
Unlted states Circuit Court-Hon. w. h.
Wooss and H.n. j r. Brndley-The
olaughterhouse Case.
In this case Judge Bradley, in the United |
States Circuit Court, yesterday reviewed his |
decision OF the day previous, as follows:
In the Slaughterhouse case yesterday we |
expressed the opinion that the civil rights |
bill did not apply to the case; that it was |
intended merely to secure to all citizens, of |
every race and color, the same privileges as
white citizens enjoy, and not TO modify or /
enlarge the latter. This portion of the |
opinion had not been put in writing at the |
time, and was somewhat hastily expressed. |
Our attention had been chiefly given to the
main questionable true construction of the |
fourteenth amendment. On more careful
examination. considering that the civil |
rights Dill was enacted at the same session,
and but shortly before the presentation Of |
the fourteenth amendment was reported by |
the same committee, was IN pari mdterid, |
and was probably intended TO reach the
same object. We are disposed to modify our
opinion In this respect, and TO hold, as the
counsel on both sides seem to agree in hold.
ing, that the first section of the bill covers
the same ground as the fourteenth amend
ment.
And while we still hold that the act is not
intended to enlarge the privileges and i'm
munlties Of white citizens, it must be con-
strued as furnishing additional guarantees
and remedies to secure their enjoyment;
and this Is probably the reason why Con- |
gress has negls cted to pass an addition al |
law for carrying the fourteenth amendment |
into effect, the civil rights bill being re-
garded as having already supplied the ne |
cessary provisions for that purpose. Still, |
this bill has not repealed the law which |
prohibits the Federal courts from issuing an |
injunction to stay proceedings at law in the /
State courts. The prayer for Injunction /
will, therefore, stand denied to that extent. |
but granted as to the residue, as announ ced |
yesterday. and the rule will be corrected |
accordingly.
Joseph Fuentes We. Myra Clark Gaines. -
This case came up yesterday on a rule taken |
on the Judge of the Second District Court |
for the parish of Orleans, TO show cause |
why the papers in the case should not be |
transferred to this court, the defendant be- |
ing citizen Of the State of New York.
Judge Woods held that the United States |
Circuit Court is without jurisdiction in pro-
bate matters, and the rule was dismissed.
The COnh.catioa Gases.
In these cases Judge Bradley held that |
they shsuld be held open until after the |
next term of the Supreme Court of the
United States.
Charles Morgan vs. Chattanooga Rail-
r0ad.-In this case Judge Bradley said he
had been too indisposed to write out an
opinion, but was inclined to think that the
city had right to dispose of square No. u.
he SAD the Circuit Court Of the United
States had no right to set aside an injunc
ton issued by a State Court, and that the
remedy of the party aggrieved was by writ
OF error to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
With regard to the claim of Charles Nor
gan to the land in front of Jackson SQUARE,
he was Of opinion that Morgan had the right
TO the property rs an adjunct to his privi-
Ieges as owner OF the OpeloEsas Railroad. | ,
The Legislature had no right to take this
property from Morgan and give it to the
f fttnmse.1ds" or Rsilroad. +,
<bo .ooI 700 opdiuO Iuna 1871 | hOv