The Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1870-1871, 1871-03-30
OFFICIAL JOUlRN A l.
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES .
FIRST s e SdSION
OF THE s7s tal, "a
SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
IRIS T s E SIS ION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Continued from our last N,lmberj

Continued from our last Numberj
The bill now before me, and which I
can not sign, simply proposes to revoke
the grant of the exclusive privilege
ioresaid, which was given to the corpo-
ration by the act No 118, of 1869. This
the Legislature can not do without violat-
ing section ten, article one of the con-
stitution of the United States, and article
101 of the constitution of this State. It
would be law impairing the obligation
of contract, and would be null and
void.
The obligation Of q controct, the
Supreme Court of the United States has
said, consists in its binding before on
the party who makes it. This obligation,
this binding force, the Legislature is
prohibited from impairing. Therefore
if a law should be passed declaring that
particular contract between two persons
or between two corporations, should not
be carried out it would be clearly uncon-
stitutional and void.
It has been often decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States and
by the highest courts Of the several
States, that grant made by State is a
contract, and in Story's Commentaries
on the Constitution, section 1861, it is
said contracts and grants made by a
State are not less within the reach Of
this prohibition than contracts and grants
Of private persons. The legislature may
by law directly make grant, and such
q grant when once made becomes ire
vocable and cannot be constitutionallY
impaired" This is the language of all
the writer's on constitutional law and Of
all the decisions.
The Supreme Court of our own State
has decided that the Legislature can
grant an exclusive privilege to corpora
ton. Such grant is contract between
the Legislature and the corporators
based for its consideration on the iabii.
ties and duties which the corporatorf
assume In recent work on constitu.
tional limitations it is said:
''The grant of the franchise can nc
more be rescinded by the Legislature, OF
its benefits diminished or impaired
without the consent of the granite thar
any other grant Of property or valuable
thing, unless the right to do 50 is reserv-
ed in the charter itself" ,t. -
The attempt, on the part Of the
Legislature, to revoke a charter and
franchises which have been granted tc
privete individuals, and under which
others have been induced to invest
money, is calculated to destroy al
confidence in commerce and evey species
of trade. Stocks of numerous incorpot-
ed companies are brought and sold ir
the market as securities; are held BY
those who desire invetments Their
value depend as much upon the security
which the constitution and laws throw
around them as upon the enterprise O
the managers objects Of the organization
If the Legislature gives to-day and takes
away tomorrow, capital will soon seek 6
place where laws are less tickle.
This bill does not, in SO many words
repeal the act creating or revoke thu
grant made to the Crecent City Live
Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse Com
pany, but it does, in effect, by granting
to others the privileges which exclusively
given to said company in the act approx
ed March s, 1869. What the Legislature
can not do directly it can not do in
dicectly.
It can not be said that the Legislature
has not exceeded its constitutional autho
rity, because an investigation has beer
had and because reasons may have beel
shown why the charter of the Slaughter
house Company should be forfeited. Tn
Legislature can not inquire into cause
1
for, nor declare the forfeiture of a charter
That is subject Of Judicial inquiry alon
The judicial power isvested in the courts
and any attempt upon the part Of tn
Legislature to exercise such power is il
violation of article seventy-three Of tn
constitution. This question was decide
NV tho S,1r,.ouno Cont If o1r STATE IN th