New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-12
Written for the New Orleans Republican,
WHY NOTs

EDITOR REPUBLICAN,:
One of your contemporaries speaking OF
the decision of Judge Bradley in the
Slaughterhouse case, says:
1t may be that he does not thereby pre-
Judge the very question be Will have 70 pass
upon as one of the nine judges OF the Su-
preme Court when the case comes before
| him on it's merits. Such conclusion Is
| absolutely essential to justify him in sitting
upon the trial Of the case on the merlts. IL
his opinion on the question then to be de-
| termined has already been made up ana eX'
| pressed while sitting as Circuit Judge, ne
certainly would not participate IN the deter.
mination of that point when 1t comes Delore
the appellate tribunal, of which he ls
| member. He would thus review and de-
termne his own decision in the court qua.
It is not to be imagiued that any justice OF
the Supreme Court of the United States
would do this.
"Not to be imagined" forsooth! Why
not! Has it not been the law and the prac-
tice almost from the earliest hour OF the
existence of our Federal Judiciary TO the
present time, for Judges of the Supreme
Court to sit with their associates Oh the
Supreme Bench while reviewing decisions
made by them on the Circuh? Is it not
| true that the opinion of the Supreme Court
is often pronounced by the very Judge VINO
rendered the decision in the lower court!
1t is hardly to be presumed that your con-
temporary deems the Crescent City Live
Stock Company Of such transcendent con-
sequence that new rule of practice must
be adopted in its behalf in the Supreme
, Court, which shall forever seal Judge Brad
| ley's lips, because he has been compelled, IN
| advance of his associates, to pass upon
| some of the rights of that corporation! Yet
it is quite strongly intimated that, having
once spoken, he should forever after hold
his peace!'
Some other matters are worthy Of cor
rection. The case and trial are spoken OF
! as CT parte. The defendants were in court,
answered the bill, aud were very ably rep
| resented 1t was in no sense OF the phrase
| an eL pGrte proceeding.
Again it is charged that the act creating
| the Crescent City Live stock Landing and
| Slaughterhouse Company was held an IN
| constitutional monopoly on tne pare aver
| meut of a bill in chancery, written ny law
yers with all the recklessness and extraya-
gance with which such pleadings are pre-
pared" OF course, the complalnants In
sisted upon, while the respondents denied,
the unconstitutionaiity OF some OF the pro,
visions of that act; but this was an issue OF
law, while it should be borne IN mind that
the real allegations OF fact III tne DILL even
if reckless, were not denied by the answer
put in, and the court, under the Issue pre-
sented, was bound to take them as true.
Besides, all who have read the opinion,
will see that so far as the constitutional
question was concerned, it was based, as 1t
only could be, on the provisions OF the
constitution and of the law. The matters OF
fact alleged were only material to show
that the complainants had right to bring
so grave a question before that court, and
| demand it's decision thereon. II these ale.
patious of fact had been denied II would
have been necessary first, to settle that
issue before going to the more important
issue Of law. But they were not denied
aud the legal issue being thus fairly raised.
Judge Bradley and his able associate could
not shrink from passing upon 1t Wlthou!
violation of their official oaths.
In deciding it, it WAS proper that they
should pay due respect, as they did, 10 the
decision Of the State tribunal; but equally
was it their duty to act independently.
The case was before them because the rui-
ing o. the late Supreme Co Irt did not bind
their judgment ana because oiHereht Tul-
ing was sought.
Now was il so very extraordinary? This
is by no means the first time that the rul-
ings of the Supreme Court OF a State nave
been considered by a Circuit Court OF the
United States and either followed or over
ruled.
Permit me to add that l. shall be much
mistaken if this opinion is not widely read
and as widely approved. To me 1t was re-
treshing to listen to such language from the
bench, for in it all, there was manifest
cardinal principle that government IS for
the citizen not citizen for the government,
that it is tor the many, not the lew, tor all,
not for privileged class"
This is sound Republican doctrine, older
by far than the political party bearing that
| name though it is matter for congratuia'
ton, surely, that the fourteenth amend
ment,n which so clearly recognizes 1t, was
Republican measure, and its adoption 8
Republican triumph. 1t was, indeed, the
platform of law-abiding, anti-slavery men
ante beLuns and, as one of the veterans o.
that class, l can but rejoice to see 1t at las
SO unequivocally recognized in the grea
| national charter, and SO obviously Respected
by Federal court.
"The injustice Of irresponsible Legislation
may be one crying evil" but is it no
equally true, that even in the courts, II
| contests between the government and th'
citizen, there has sometimes been forgetful-
ness of the great idea, governments are
for the people, not the people for the gov
ernments" This inquiry is not made will
reference to any particular court, State o.
, Federal, but believe it, nevertheless, no
wholly without warrant. There is ten
dency among men to lean to the side o
power, and judges, alas! are but men
For one feel like thanking the PresideD
and American Senate for sending us tWC
, Republi an judges, fresh from the people
who SO clearly avoW and maintain thost
| ipto rf r.