, 1873-04-19
THE NEW ORLEANS ABATro1R DEoIs1o

Tho recent decision Of tho United Htatcs S,,-
pre1no Court, in tho caso Of ",rhc Crescent City
livestock Landing and Slaughter Company
constitutes another valuable addition to tho
precodents already furnished by tho decision Of
that Court, IN questions involving State rights,
and tho extent to wllicl, tho federal Govern
mont may interfere with thoao rights. Some
an act for tho incorporation Of an abattoir COM
pany, undor lho titlo named above. Tho incor-
poratora wero granted tho privilege Of tho
exclusive right Of butchoring cattlo for tlo
merheta Of New Orloans; and private slaughter
houses, within the arca Of tho Parish OF Now
Orleans, were prohibited under aovero pennl-
tics. An extraordinary aud porhaps Infamous
monopoly was thus croatod, and the aggrievod
butchora Of Now Orloans, whose business inter-.
ests wero thus summnrily invaded, contested tho
validity Of the act before the Supreme Court OF
the State, which gaye its Endorsement to tho
act Tile case MAS then taken to the Supreme
Court Of the United statcs, which l,as practically
affirmed the decision of tho lower Court, by ro-
fusing to take Jurisdiction Of purely State Affairs
the Chief Juatice and Associates Field, Bradley,
and suayno dissenting.
The decision Of tho Oonrt, while it indirectly
hustaina this monopoly, docs not turn upon this
point. The question of monopoly was not be-
fore the Court at all, as Is assumed by tho lfis-
sot'i Democrat and some other Journals. The
question which really inspired tho decision was
ono involving tho Jurisdiction OF tho Federal
Government In the matter. The Court dcoidod
TINT the State Government was clothed with am
ple power in the premises, and TINT Its action
could not be invalidatel by tho Federal Govern
ment. In settling this question, the interpreta-
ton of the three now amendments to
the Constitution WAS involved; and al-
10 tho question whether these amendments
changed the proyiously-oxiating relations
botweon tho State and Federal Goyornmenta.
Tho Court has decided that they hayo not Tho
butchers of Now Orleans, liko Mrs. Dradwell OF
this city, brought their suit under these amend
rncnts, claiming that, by virtue Of thom, they,
as oitizens OF tho United statss, had certain
rights and privileges which tho State was pow
orless to contravene Tho Court declared that
the business Of the butchers and tho claim OF
Mra. Dradwcll to practice law, did not como
within tho scope OF those amendments, but tlat
the State, and tho State only, was competent
to decide them, md TINT Hucl decision
was final. OF the soundness<6f this decision
thero Gnu DO no doubt. fThe constitutional
amendments, beyond thoir cstoppal Of tho
States from onBlaving tho negro or dopriying
him OF tho privilege Of the elective franchise
aud tho other rights Of whito mon, cannot inter-
fcre with Btata Rights. Any other Interpretation
Of those amondmonta would DO glaringly
In connIot with historical facts. IT
tho Federal Government can dictate tho
manner in which slaushtoring shall DO
conducted in city, or grant tho right to prac-
lice law IN stato courts. Or establish won,au-
suffrage, thon it can grant or exclude ut its own
option any other civil right guaranteed by the
htatutes Of any State, and tho Federal Govor,l-
mont thus becomes absolute In its Jurisdiction,
and state Governments only oxiAt or exercise
their powcrs by its aufforanco. Tho Court IN its
decision worry olearly condemns tho theory that
1t waa tho intention Of tho framors Of tho Four
teenth Amendment to bring tho entiro domain Of
civil rights, heretofore belonging to tho Btatos,
within tho powor Of Congress, aud pays:
Such contradiction followed by the reversal of thu
Judgments Of tho Bupromo Court Of Louisiana In ucso
cases would constitute this Court porpatua censor
upon all legislation Of tho States Oh o civil r,gs Of
s own citizens, With authority to nllsy such 90 it did
not approve consistent with thoae rights ua they