New-York tribune., 1873-05-05
ANOTHER YIEW or STATE RIGHTS.


of the Supreme Court of the United States
was that lately delivered i'll the New-ofleahS
slaupbter-house cases. In these, as the reader
will recollect, the opinion of the majority Oh
the Court, delivered by Mr.. Justice Miller,
was substantially a definition oil state ana
National citizenship, with separation OF the
rights which distinctyely belong to each. Inc
plaintifIs in error sought to be delivered
from the effects of an oppressive mo-
nopoly upheld by State law. They argued
that the XIIIth Amendment to the
Constitution, prohibiting involuntary servitude,
protected them from such an invasion OF
vested rights as the Louisiana enactment con-
templated. They urged that the law which
gave special privileges to the slaughter-house
corporation debarred them from Their naturu
rights. The opinion of the majority OF the
court was that the rights which plantihS
claimed lad been invaded were not of the
class which are peculiar to the citizen of the
United States and which the National Govern
ment is bound to maintain. 1t held that the
only remedy of the plaintiffs was in the State
Courts or State Legislature, where the claims
of citizens of the State can alone be adjusted
In other words, it remanded the whole ques-
ton to the State Government as the custodian
of the plaintiffs rights in the case.
From this opinion Chief-Justice Chase and
Justices Field, Swayne, and Bradley, conshtu-
ting minority of the Court, dissented. as we
have said. Although the opinion delivered by
Justice Miller stands as the dctum OF the
highest judicial tribunal of the land, that OF
the minority of the Justices, summary OF
which we printed lately, is entitled to respect
and consideration. 1t is an able and learned
document; and tie names of the jurists who
concur in it give it great weight. The minor
ity opinion, which was delivered by Mr..
Justice Field holds that the sanitary
regulations which were pleaded as
justification of the New-0rleans slaughter
house law cannot be permitted to thus
serve as an excuso for an encroachment on
the Just rights of any citizen. 1t is then
argued that restriction of the work of slaugh-
tering cattle to certain limit of territory,
under certain conditions is all that the health
of the city can require. To vest in corpora
ton the sole right to do that work, to the ex-
clusion of all others, is an infringement upon
rights to which every citizen of the United
States is entitled. If exclusive privileges of
this sort may be granted to seventeen per-
sons, they may be to a single individually II
they may be granted for twenty-five years,
they may be for a century, and i'll perpetulty.
If they NAV be granted for the preparation OF
animal food, they may be for the storage ana
preparation of every other variety OF food.
Taking up the question as affected by the
recent amendments to the Constitution, the
minority opinion sets forth that the AlFth
Amendment made express provision for the
protection of citizens of the United States in
their civil rights that these rights were to
"make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties
" give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease,
" sell. hold, and convey real and personal
" "property.n &C. 1t is held, therefore, that as
these rights are those of every citizen of the
United States, any statute which encroaches
thereon is in fact, in the language of Senator
Trumbull, "a badge of servitude which by the
" Constitution is prohibited" Under the
Dred Scott decision the words people
81 of the United Statesn and "citizens of
the United Statesn were Synonymous
terms. The XIYth Amendment changes all
this. A citizen of State is now only citizen
of the United States residing in that State.
The fundamental rights, privileges and i'm
munities which belong to him as free citizen
now belong to him as citizen of the United
States, and are not dependent on his citizen
ship of any State. The rights and privileges
secured by the Constitution against abridg-
ment by State legislation are above enumer-
ated. These claims were first recognized in
the Civil Rights act of Congress; and all doubt
as to their existence was removed by the
adoption of the XIVth Amendment. That
amendment protects every citizen of the United
States against hostile and discriminating legis-
lation in favor of others, whether they reside
in the same or different States. Under the
IVth Article of the Constitution State is, in eff
feet, prohibited from the creation of any monop-
oily in favor of its own citizens The XIVth
Article protects citizens of tho United States
against the creation of any monopoly what
ever. One of the characteristic privileges of
the national citizen is an equality of right
with exemption from all disparagng or partial
enactments, in the lawful pursuits of life
throughout the whole country. Any attempt
to invade those rights by State or local au-
thority must be resisted by the National Gov
ernment. Such, briefly, is the view of the
important question held by the minority of
the Supreme Court it must be confessed that
it will meet with a very general popular in
dOrsement.
TIE NORTH WESTERN EPISCOPAL CON