New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-01
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE.
SATURDAY, February 25, 1871.

titled, IAN act to regulate the location OF
slaughterhOuscs, stock landings, and the
inspection of meat in the city of New Or
leans and the parishes Of Jefferson. Orleans
and st. Bernard, and OF the duty of the AT
torney General, the city Of New Orleans
and the Board of metropolitan Police, in
cases concerning persons engaged in the
business of preparing meats for market,
having been read, and Mr.. Matthews, OF
Tensas, having moved that the bill pass, the
veto OF the Governor to the contrary not
withstandinS-
Mr.. Carter, of Cameron: Mr.. Speaker,
propose now to make a short statement,
rather than speech, and ] wish all the
members to hear me, on the merits of the
Governors message, SO far as l caught them
through my defect in hearing, and especially
on the principles of the bill which his eX-
cellency has vetoed. ! say. propose to
discuss and advocate the motion Just made,
70 pass the bill returned with the Governors
veto, his objections Notwithstanding. l in
tended in 4 quiet and modest way, to sta.e
the objects Of the bill when it was upon its
original passage, but there was SO much
confusion that could not get the attention
OF the Speaker, and the House insisted upon
voting without any statement OF the char
acter Of the measure itself. The substantial
objections to the hill, urged in the Gov
ernOr's veto-withOut attempting to discuss
and quote his legal a,thOrities-are that it
interferes with vested rights; that is the
only thing in the message, taking all the
objections together that l consider worthy
OF serious attention. The bill Ii rs explicit
in it's title az bills ordinarily are sufficiently
explicit to indicate its character; and in
est upon it, that when this bill passed us,
and became our property by our indorsc-
hient, that his eXcellency travels out of the
record, when he says that the bill does not
state its objects in its title, and that it
is not stated even in it's substance; in
other words, the allegation is made very
delicately, but made very distinctly, thar
we, as q part of the government, had en-
acted law which has some suppre ssed and
some latent intention which the lawmakers
were afraid to express upon the face OF their
own law. Now, that bill was prepared by
the first iurist probably, in this State Judge
Campbell, formerly on the supreme bench
Of the United States, whose legal reputation
would preclude the suspicion of subterfuge
in preparing the bill. And, l state to you,
examine it fairly. and you will find that it
expresses its objects, not only with sufficient
definiteness in its title, but that the bill pro-
poses what it says it proposes, and nothing
more and nothing less. l say that the only !
item which needs attention in this matter,
in nv Judgment, is that it is alleged that |
this bill violates article one hundred and |
ten of the constitution, by interfering |
with vested rights 1t is alleged !
vince to perform judicial functions, and it |
is alleged that the Legislature, in interior |
ing with these vested rights, has attempted /
to perform judicial functions, and in thus |
doing something which the courts ought to
do, ie, at the same time, doing something |
which is in conflict with the decisions Of
the courts. Do l state that sufficiently
clear for YOU to understand it Now, the
Legislature is not doing a judicial act in re-
iringing vested rights; the Legislature is
not in conflict with decisions of the Su-
prepae Court, as shall show you before l
take nv seat. We have the right to repeal
charters and to amend charters for salts
factory reasons, and We have the right to
put companies in liquidation under the pro-
visions of the law; We have the right to
modify charters; our action is not
judicial, it is not interfering with
vested rights, and unless we interfere
with vested rights, it does not require that
to discuss the point that here there is no
Of vested rights. Tell NE
what vested right is. What is it {! 1t is
admitted by all the able counsel who have
sustained this bill through the various liti-
cation in the courts, that the monopoly
granted to the Slaughterhouse Company
for sheltering and Strengthening cattle and
preparing meat, was necessary for police
purposes, for health purposes, for public
cising a police function in passing il. The
whole OF the great argument Of the great
minds that have been brought to maintain
this monopoly, have held that great public
utility and public health was to be sub
served by granting extraordinary and ex-
elusive powers under the police charac-
ter of the State. Where is the vested right
heref Do you mean to say that the State
can give anybody q vested right in its pO-
lice pOweri Do you mean to say that any
body who performs police function ac-
quires q vested right because he does its
If SO, every policeman in this hall has an
inalienable right to perform police functions,
and to get the emoluments. Do you pre-
tend to say that the police of your State
has a vested right simply because they per-
form police functions? Don't you see that
IN order to get vested right, these police
must be necessary for the per-
Torrance Of a great public benefit. and if
the public benefit does not require it, there
is no right that can be acquired. To tell me
that corporation or an individual ever can
acquire vested rights in the police powers
Of the State is just to say that the State
can invest individuals, or even least digni-
led and least trustworthy of all indi-
viduals, an artificial individual, o cOr,ior-
alton with it's sovereignty. for its police
pow er is sovereign. say, if there is vested
right an where. 1t comes in in this place,
bat hold and know that the police power IF
The State can not be vested so that the State |
cannot take it back at its OWL pleasure. Now,
don't intend to take up Inc time Of the !
House, but ! say that there is no vested
tight infringed. We don't take away their
This bill simply proposes that this
company, who, as a man, don't represent
he interests-dOn't represent the bone and |
muscle and heart OF this country-it simply
AVS that fifteen hundred butchers that |
work for their living, and that worked for it !
before this corporation was dreamed Of if
hey obey the laws Of health, and submit to
Inspection, that these people shall 90 on
nd carry on their private business. But does
his bill conflict with the decisions of the
supreme Court Not a bit of it. You ask how
he Supreme Court sustained the slaughter
,onse against the butchers? What but
his bill puts the butchers in IN attitude to |
larmOnize them with the decisions of the
supreme Court! What are the decisions Of
he Supreme Court don't intend to quote
hem at length now. But the Supreme
;Ourt, In its final decision, covered these | ,
cry points: First, The State, in the exer-
Use Of its police power for sanitary pur-
oses, and for public utility and health,
ould limit the location and subject to in
pection the slaughterhouses. That is the s
rst decisiOn-rhat the State, in the cxer-
.se of its police powers and for the public ,
eslth, can determine the location and the L
olice OF these things known as slaughter t
Ouses. 1t decided, secondly, that it could (
elegate this power to a corporation II !
ecided, thirdly, that as a corporation 3
Ould not in the nature of things be an Off '