New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-07

NEW ORLEANS, July S, 1870.
To the Honorable the Mayor and Council. City of
New Orleans
GENTLEMEN-The petition of A. Cazabat,
Esq, for zone thousand dollars for profess
siOnal services, rendered as attorney in be-
half of the City of Jefferson" referred to
this Office is herewith respectfully returned,
with the opinion that it ought not to be
granted without further data. The petit
toner does not state in what case or cases
his services were rendered, nor the charac-
ter of the service, nor the amount involved
in legal controversy. The only support he
offers to sustain his claim ESQ far
as the papers referred to this
office inform us is the unofficial
Massie, who sign as ''late Aldermen of the
City of jefferson" and that certificate
merely states that Mr.. Cazabat's services
were in "variOus important cases before
the Second District Court of Louisiana"
without giving us the numbers, titles and
amounts of the suits, or any means Of in
vestigating the claims. The ''late Alder
men" add that Mr.. Cazabat's claim was
accepted by the Council" whatever that
acceptances of that late body, l do not think
their action on this claim entities it to espe-
cial favor.
recommend that Mr. Cazabat's petition
be rejected till he shall have made out his
case.
l have the honor remain,
Your Obedient servant.
RUFUS NAPLES,
Assistant City Attorney.
From Assistant Attorney NAPLES:
NEW ORLEANS, July S, 1870.
To the Honorable the Mayor and Council of the City
of New Orleans:
GENTLEMEN-In response to the question
submitted to this Office relative to ''wheels
of fOrtune,"I answer that, in my opinion,
the licensing of them is not only illegal, but
implicitly forbidden by the constitution.
All species of gambling, lotteries and
games of chance are in conflict with the
spirit of the laws, against public policy and
juridically immoral. Statutes have been
enacted, from time to time, Furnishing such
practices on the assumption of their i'm
morality. Such statutes have been enacted
not only when we have had con-
stitution expressly prohibiting lotteries, ETC.,
but also when we have had q constitution
silent upon the subject Whether SO ex-
pressed in the organic law or not, the very
existence Of constitution implies that one
of it's objects is to conserve public morals.
Hence, when the constitution of 1864 was
framed it was found necessary to expressly
authorize the General Assembly to license
gambling and lotteries, as, in the absence
OF such express authority, the Legislature
would have had no such power. The
present constitution gives no such grant to
the General Assembly, but implicitly for
bids legislation repulsive to the ethics of
Jurisprudence.
The idea that State Legislature may do
anything not expressly prohibited by its
written constitution, is prevailing error.
Natural rights can only be legislated upon
granted in derogation of public morals
monopolies can not be created in violation
OF individual rights. When Legislature
transcends its powers in these respects, its
acts are absolute utilities, and citizens may
disregard them without awaiting the decis-
ions Of courts and without respect to decis-
ions which seek to enforce such acts.
1t may be said that our General Assembly
has taken q different view from that herein
expressed, and has granted lottery.