New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-29
TaE SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASE.
Rule for a Contempt to be Made Absolute.
JUDGE DIBBLE,s RULING.

The room of the Eighth District Court was
Yesterday filed with a throDg of curious
spectators, to witness the closing scene IN
the great SlaushterhOuse controversy.
The matter on trial, was the case OF the
State of Louisiana on the relation OF 8. Bel
den. Attorney General, against William
Pagan and others, butchers at the Cavaroc
plantation. A rule had been taken on the
defendants to show cause why they should
not be punished for contempt Dy hne ana
Imprisonment. for continuing to carry on
the trade of bntcheriDg animals for the mar
kets in the parishes Of Orleans. Jefferson
and st. Bernard, in defiance of the Slaugh-
terhouse case and the Injunction OF the
Fifth District ourt as affirmed by the S0-
preme Court of the State.
MIR. w. H. Hunt, on the part OF the
Slaughterhouse Company, made statement
to the effect that he signed an agreement 10
suspend action in the Slaughternouse cases
until the decision of the matter by the Su-
preme Court of the State, but he knew
nothing of any private agreement to await
the decision of the Supreme Court OF the
United States.
After some desultory conversation be.
tween the attorneys-Judge Cotton. MI.
Hunt, and the Attorney General-Judge
Dibble remarked that the only question to
be decided was whether the writ Of error to
the Supreme Court operated as superse.
deas 80 far as to prevent the enforcement OF
this Injunction. The argument, he SAID,
bv its language. meant that the parties
must abide by the decision OF the Supreme
Court of the State.
MIR. Hunt, in further explanation, said
the reason why nothing was said about .
decision of the Suprtme Court of the United
States was, that no one believed it possible
to get the question before that court.
Respondents, by their attorneys, fled an
exception to the rule tor contempt, as 1oi-
lows:
Now. into court comes the defendants on
rule taken by Attorney General on them to
show cause why they should not De pun
ished for contempt. and for answer pieao:
l. They disclalm any intention OF COM
| mitting a contempt of the authority OF this
honorable court.
| 2. They specially plead that this honorable
| court ia Invested Of jurisdiction in the cause
by reason of the writ Of error having been
| taken from the decision of the Supreme
| Court of the State of Louisiana, to the Su-
preme Court of the United States.
| 8. The State of Louisiana, through the
Attorney General, can not enforce the In
| iunction sued out in this court against
these relators, because the act OF the Legls.
| lature. under which he is proceeding, Is
| illegal. unconstitutional, null and void, and
violates the fourteenth and fifteenth amend
ments of the constitution OF the United
States, and the acts OF Congress passed
| relative thereto, and to carry INTO eHect anu
enforce the same.
d. The decision of the Supreme Court is
not final, and can not be enforced; nor can
the writ of injunction taken Olt IN the above
case be enforced until the final decision OF
the cause by the Supreme Court OF the
United States.
5. There is an express agreement between
these respondents and the Attorney General,
Simeon Belden, that they should not oe @ ois' us
turbed in the erection OF the buildings de-
scribed in the petition and rule-the exer-
cise and conducting of their business at said
nlace-the purchase of the property from
Charles Cavaroc-duringt the pending OF this
litigation: and under this positive agree
ment and promise your relators represent to
this honorable court they have been acting.
aud they especially plead this agreement IN
bar of any further proceeding on the part OF
the Attorney General until the cause II
finally disposed of by judgment OF the Su-
preme Court of the United States.
The Attorney General opened the argu-
ment. showing that although the writ o.
error might operate as supersedeas, tns
Injunction, as affirmed by the supreme
Court of the State, was still IN force. ht
denied, however, that the writ OF error
onerated as a supersedeas. The injunction
was still in full force, and the ruling OF Judg'
BRADLEY did not and could not reverse thu
decision of the Supreme Court OF the State
but only suspended the execution OF the dc
cree until the final decision at Washington
The. Attorney General read from FRS
Blackford's Reports, to the effect that tn
federal courts, on q mere erpdrte proceeding
can not reuerse decision OF State court
Judge Dibble remarked there was no ques
, ton as to the practice in such cases, whlc
WAS that suspensive appeal does not sus
pend the execution Of an injunction. Ther
we're any number of authorities to that effec'
Judge Cotton then said that he woul
submit the case.
Mr.. Fellows made some remarks savorin
, somewhat of ill temper, and abandoning
the case with apparent disgust at the uncer
, tainties of the law, took up his books an
walked.
; Mr.. Hunt said that it was unnecessary t
!, argue so plain a case, and declined to rea
any authorities in support OF q posltlo
, which no lawyer ever doubted. He said
was not necessary to argue case VII
those who thought it not worth arguln
lMessrs. Cotton and Fellows having left tn
, court room), but nevertheless went on I
deliver an eloquent and logical address, to
9 | lengthy for our space.
had no doubt of the p)wer OF the court t
1 execute the injunction, and lntimated tns
| the rule against the defendants would 2
made absolute. He said the decision woul
g be written out shortly.
, This would seem to end the Slaughter
house controversy, at least until it Is re
yived in the Supreme Court OF the Unite
I States.