National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1873-05-10
THE NRw ORLEANS SLAUGHTER
HOusR CASE.


Once embarked In the consideration and |
discussion Of the recent opinion Of the su-
preme Court In this case we hnd the interest
Increasing as we proceed. We shall endeavol
to-day TO convey to our readers general
understanding Of the case and the impression
made upon US by the opinions delivered by
the majority Of the court. There was ut hrst
general disposition, in which VIC shared, TO
accept this decision as correct. There was
even feeling Of surprise that case OF sani-
tary or municipal police like this Lhould en-
gage the attention Of the court Of last resort.
II was, prin,d 6dcie, q controversy as to-
where, In New Orleans, cattle should be
landed, and what disposition should be made
Of the ofal, with reference to the public health.
No city In the world has had more frequent
occasion TO appeal to the law Of eminent do
main than has New Orleans In Its external
and internal quarantine regulations. Why
Congress, or why the Supreme Court, should
claim jurisdiction In such localized contro-
yersy was far-off question, and the tired
feeling all publicists have in the old war be-
tween the Federal Union and the States led
them to welcome the recent decision In favor
Of the latter. The State Of Louisiana had said,
tnIOubu Tvs Lesislhtuiet W thc ehy VI -'N"
Orleans, that the peril to the public health 10
the latter locality from slaughter-house null
sances was such that the State right OF emi-
nent domain shonld be asserted. The city
thereupou surrenders to the State. The ques-
ton before the Supreme Court Is, whether
the State shall surrender 10 the Union In case
the latter should decide for the citizen as
against both the municipality and the State.
To the careless thinker the decision, headed
by Judge Miller, only settled negatively
question Of right of the Federal Power to
interfere with the action OF state Legislature
In matters Of seemingly purely municipal
police. To the so-called conservative u
hushed an alarm, put of an evil day, TEN
porized judiciously, balanced great issue OF
a delicate fulcrum, and helped In the recon
struction Of the South by convincing the ad
vocates Of State sovereignty that the abolition
Of slavery was purely war measure, an un
avoidable inconvenience Incident to the ap
peal to arms; that the fourteenth amendmen
was equally accidental, being forced upon u
by the guardianship We were In honor boun'
to maintain over the wards we had incon
siderately placed In new and difficult posi-
tion; that the civil rights bill, which Is hardl!
more than liberal TRANSLATION OF the four
teenth amendment, tacitly maintained tn
distinction Of color, and had no reference u
the vested privileges Of the white population
and that, finally, In the concession Of kuf
frage, the whole duty Of the Federal Uniol
to protect all citizens In their life, liberty an
property was at an end. II this were so,
were needless to vex the Federal Courts b
such appeals Us that from Louisiana. Stat
rights, slavery excepted, were restored to th
States in statu quo ante bellunl.
In that temper, in the wish on the part {
the Republican party TO be as mild as ma
be consistently with safety, the recent d,
cIsion Of the Supreme Court was accepte
with quiet amounting to apathy. Few {
the leading journals have found In 1t q top
for discussion, yet to those who reason bac
TO ultimate causes II Is plain that problem
not new, but as old as the Government, Ia le
unsettled. Il Ia that Of the relation Of Fe,
eral to State rights. There Is only too mut
force In the dissenting opinions Of the m
norlty OF the court, and which needed oI
vote TO make 1t majority. The majorlI
holds that the three latest amendments TO u
Constitution were originally designed as
protection to the negro, a peg upon WIKI
to hang him up until he could manage q
himself. As to the negro, the power Of Co
gress was, in their opinion, enlarged. As
the State, and as to the citizen Of State
such, it remained unchanged. The old dOu
whether the sovereignty Of the State is pl
mary or deriyative Is left unsettled. The log
Of Justice Miller, who represents the IN
jority, Is that the war for the Union W
horn out Of the discordant Institution
slavery, and It's principles and motives P'
ished with its parent. It even goes so far
TO hold that the distinction ,'s% between SLAYER