New Orleans Republican., 1873-04-15

Gillem-The MOdOcs-HIay Their Fate
be Commensurate with Their Crime
Judgment of Court of Claims in Favor
of Mobile Builders-The Slaughter
house Case in the supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, April 1.-THE President
leaves Wednesday for St Louis.
General JEFF G. Davis succeeds General
Candy.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, April II. 1873.
To General Gillem, Modoc Camp, via Yreka, Cali
1ornia:
Your dispatch announcing the terribleloss
T. the country of General Candy by the
perfidy of the Modoc Indians has been shown
TO the President, who authorizes me to in
struct you to make the attack so strong and
pei sstent that their fate may be cOmmen-
surate with their crime. You will be fully
justified in their utter determination.
w. T. SHERMAN, General.
The Court of Claims gave judgment
against the United Stat IS in favor of John
Tigh aud j. H. Gindrat, for 5000, for work
on public buildings at Mobile, in 1855.
Tie following opinion was delivered in
the Supreme Court to-day:
The Butchers Benevolent Associa-
ton VS.. Crescent City Live Stock
Landing and Slaughter House Com
pany In error to the Supreme Court
OF Loui ,iana, and two other cases.-ln these
cases it is complained that the incor-
poratlon Of the landing and Slaughter
house Company by the Legislature of
the State, giving it the exclusive privilege
of erecting an exclusive landing for live
stock and slaught erhouse for the whole
CITY of New Orleans, in which all butchers
must do their slaughtering on such terms
as shall be prescribed bv the company, was
a establishment in ali it1 essential quail
ties of slavery, forever abolished by the
thirteenth amendment, and violation OF
the fifteenth amendment, which provided
as follows: No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizensOf the United States,
nor shall any State deprive anv person ofJife,
liberty or property without cue process OF
law, nor deny 10 any person within Its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
1t revives slavery, it is said. by making all
the people Of New Orleans who are ell
gagged as butchers or may wish to engage
as such the servants of the seven
teen corporators of the company, who
are the dominants, and placing them
and their business at the mercy OF these
men. 1t is violation of the fourteenth
amendment, it is argued, because it de-
priyes the butchers of the city OF the use OF
the slaughter houses and other property
which they have employed, and Of the
business itself which is G given over 20 q mt
popoly, unless they will 60 to the monopoly
for the privilege of continuing.
The court below held that as the charter
of the company was for the declared pur-
pose of protecting the health of the city, the
subject was WITHIN the lawful scope OF
legislation, and that as the operations
of the company were to be under
certain prescribed restrictions and for
the benefit of the city, there was
sufficient consideration for grant OF prlvl-
leges and the charter was valid. 1t is here
held to be the right and duty of the legisla-
ture the supreme power of the State or OF
the municipality, to fix the location where
the business of slaughtering for great city
may be done, and that to do this effectively y
it is necessary that all persons who slaugh-
ter animals shall do it in these places, and
nowhere else.
The law in these cases does not prevent
the butchers from doing their own slaugh-
tering: on the contrary, the company can
not, under heavy. penalties, prevent any
person from slaughteIing in his own house,
and it Is bound to make ample provisions
for the convenience of all. The wisdom of
the monopoly granted may be ques
toned. but there is no Justification
for the assertion that The butchers
are deprived of the right to prosecute
their occupations, or the people OF
their daily service of food. The power ex-
ercised is, in its essential nature, and has
been up to the present period IN the constr
tutional history Of the country, ALWAYS con-
ceded to belong to the States. Upon 1t de-
nends the security of social order, the life
and health OF the citizen, the comfort OF
an existence in thickly populated commu-
nity, the enjoyment of private life and the
beneficial use of property.
1t extends to the protection OF the hives,
health, comfort and quiet OF all persons,
and to the protection of all property within
the State. The regulation of the business
of slaughtering ANIMALS within city and
the inspection OF the animals to be killed
for meat, and of the meat afterward, are
among the most necessary and frequent ex-
ercises eff this power, and the exclusive au-
thority of the State Legislature over this
subject is well settled
The answer to the objection raised under
the thirteenth amendment is THAI personal
servitude is there meant, as plainly indi-
Gated by the word, " involuntary" In re-
spect Of the claim under the fourteenth
amendment it is said that the first clause
of the first section of that amendment was,
primarily, designed to establish the citizen
ship of the negro race born IN the United
States: secondly, to give an authoritative
definition of citizenship of the United
States and of citizenship Of the several
States
This clause recognizes and establishes
citizenship of State and citizenship OF the
United States as different things and de-
fined by different characteristics. 1t Is the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States which are protected by the
clause of the fourteenth amendment from
hostile action of the States, not the prlvi-
leges and immunities OF citizens Of the sew
eral States.
These latter were defined by Justice
Washington in Corfeld VS.. Cayoll, and by
this court in Woods vs.. Mary land in a man
ner to embrace nearly all the fundamental
civic rights for the establishment and pro-
lection of which organized society is
Instituted. The privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States, some of
which are enumerated, are distinct from
those of citizens of the States, and it is
those rights, privileges and immrnities
which are by this clause of the amendment
placed under the protection of the federal
government.
If plaintiffs in error have any privileges
and immunities infringed by the defend
ants charter, which is not conceded, they
are such as depend on citizenship of the
State and not on citizenship of the United
States, and are not within the protection OF
that clause of the fourteenth amendment,
nor does that charter deprive the plaintiffs
oF RI Dropartv uithnnt aua Drncpss OT law