New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-26

vote OF thrty-twO yeas TO tnlrty-tWO nays
the Speaker cast his vote in the negative
and the motion to lay on the table wal
lost.
The question recurring on the motion tt
reconsider the vote taken on the adoption
of the majority report, Messrs. Devices, o.
De Soto, and Davidson, of Livingston, de
man,led the yeas and nays thereon, which
resulted as follows:
Yeas: Antoine, Baker, Barker, Barrow
Bickham, Broussard, Brown, Bryan, Blu
ehanan, Butler, Chachere, Cochran, Darby
Davidson, DuriO, Ellis, FOntelieu, Gardner
Garstkamp, w. Harper, Huston, Hyams
Killen, Kinsella, La Saliniere, Laurent
Llambias, Meadows. Moncure, Nelson, Otto,
Pond, Schumacher, SOuer, Stamps, u evens
Stinson. Tatman, Thompson, Turc aud, Ull
man, Wands, E. Williams, Worrall-44
Nays: Abel, Adolphe. Belot, Bentley,
Blunt, Bowen, Brewster. Buckinghana
Burch, Carr, Crawford, Darinsburg, Demas,
Devices, Faulkner, Gardner, p. Harper,
Hampstead, johnson, kearson, Kenner, H.
Lott, j. b. Lott, Mahoney, Marie, Marvin,
Matthews, McCarty, Mcfarland, Mooze,
Quinn, Raby, Riley, Ringgold, Sartain,
Smith, Stanton. Verrett, Washington, of
Assumption, Washington, OF COncOrtlia,
Waters; Wheyland, II. Williams, Yorke,
YOung-5O.
BY unanimous consent, Mr.. Davidson, OF
Livingston, introduced House bill No. 275,
IL joint resolution granting leave of alb
sence to Charles beaumont. Judge Of the
Fifth District Court for Athe parish Of
Orleans, which was placed upon its first
reading under suspension OF the rules.
The constitutional rule being suspended,
the bill was placed upon its second reading,
and considered as engrOssed.
Under further suspension of the con-
stitutional rule, the bill was placed on its
third reading and final passage, its title
adopted, and ordered to be sent to the Sen
ate for concurrence.
Mr.. Davidson, of Livingston, moved a
adoption of House bill No. 275, and also
moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon
the table.
Carried.
The Speaker laid before the House the
following messages:
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Executive Department )
New Orleans, February rs, 1871. }
To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the
House OF Representatives:
return herewith, without my approval.
an act entitled IAN act to regulate the lOca-
ton of slaughterhOuses, stock landings and
the inspection Of meat in the city OF New
Orleans, and the parishes of Jefferson.
Orleans and st. Bernard. and of the duty of
the Attorney General, the city of New Or
leans and theBOard OF Metropolitan Police.
in cases concerning persons engaged in the
business of preparing meats for market"
This bill is carefully wOrded and is well
to effect the object which it eW-
IDENTIFY has in view; that object is not ex-
pressed in its title and for that reason it
violates article IA of the constitution. and
would lie null and void if it should finally
pass.
But the act is unconstitutional for reasons
more serious than this objection to its form
BY an act, No. llS. approved March g. 1869.
entitled IAN act to protect the health OF the
city of New Orleans, to locate the stock
landing and slaughterhOuses. and to incor-
porate the Crescent City Live Stock Land
ing and SlaughterhOuse Company" the Ley
stature granted the sole and exclusive priv
lese to said company to conduct and carry
On the live stock landing and slaughter
house business within the parishes of Or
leans, Jefferson and St Bernard. The act
the corporation created thereby to
erect grand slaughterhOuse within certain
limits and to complete the same, with other
works, within a specified time. The fran
,hises of the company. with the exclusive
privilege. as stated. were granted for the
period OF twenty-five years. The State did
lOt reserve the I. ht to annul or modify the
grant.
Under this statute, the incorpora tors or
,anized. issued stock, which was bought
md sold in market. and erected their works
Is required to do. The validity of the grant
vas contested in the courts but the Supreme
court declared the law constitutional. and
sustained the corporation in its franchises,
declaring that the Legislature had full
power to make such grant
The bill now before me- and which can
lot sign. simply proposes to revoke the grant
# the exclusive privilege aforesaid, which
vas given to the corporation by the act No
Is. of 1869. This the Legislature can not
Ia without violating section ten, article one
f the constitution of the United States, and
rticle ITO of the constitution of this State.
| would be a law impairing the obligation
+ contract. and would be null and void
The obligation OF a contract. the Supreme
'Ourt of the, United States has said consists
4 its binding force on the party who makes
!. This obligation. this binding force. the
legislature is prohibited from impairing.
therefore, if a law should be passed declar-
ls that particular contract between two
ersOns or between two corporations, should |
OF be carried out it would be clearly uncon- |
titutional and void.
1t has been often decided by the Supreme
'onrt of the United States and by the
igheSt courts OF the several States, that a |
rant made by State Is a contract. and in |
tOrys Commentaries on the Constitution, |
ectlon 1891. it is said contracts and grants |
lade by a State are not less within the |
each OF this prohibition than contracts and |
rants of private persons. The Legislature |
lay by a law directly make a grant. and |
uch grant when once made becomes ire
Ocable and cannot be cOnstitutionally |
impaired" This is the language of all the
writer's on constitutional law and of all the
ecisiOns
The Supreme Court of our own State has
ecided that the Legislature can grant an
xcluslve privilege to a corporation. Such
grant is a contract between the Legisla- |
ure and the cOrpOratOrs. based for Its con
Iteration on the liabilities and duties
'hich the corporators assume. In recent
York on constitutional limitations it is said:
The grant of the franchise can no more
e rescinded by the Legislature, or its ben
fits diminished or impaired without the
Onscnt of the grantees than any other
rant Of property or valuable thing, unless
ne right to do so is reserved in the charter
SELF
The attempt, ON the part of the Legisla-
Ire, to revoke charter and franchises
'hich have been granted to private indi-
iduals. and under which others have been
,duced TO invest money ia calclllatad IN |