National Republican., 1873-05-07

=
the particular privileges and immunlties OF I
ltlEens which are clearly embraced BY the gem
raj description Of privileges deemed to be fun-
It Is pertinent TO observe that both the clause
the Constitution referred to and Justice wash
sston IN hs egmens ~ ys ei,s ., tee ptnn
ctixens a1 - state. II Is the privileges and
Of elti1ena-that IL, OF citi.ens as
ach-that are 70 be accorded 70 citizen. OF other
ustlce Washington says, privileges and immu-
itles which are In their nature fundamental
lhleh belong Of right to the citizens Of all free
II Is true, the courts have usually regarded the
lause referred to a. securing only an equality Of
riyileges with the citizens OF the State In which
be parties arc found. Equality before the law
> undoubtedly one Of the privileges and immu-
Ilties Of every citizen. am not aware that any
sse has arisen In which Il became necessary TO |
indicate any other fundamental privilege OF
although rights have hccn claimed /
which were not deemed fundamental, and have
,een rejected a. not within the protection OF
Tuage OF the clause Ia as have stated It, aud |
eems fairly susceptible OF broader interpreta-
Ion than that which makes Z a guaranty Of mere
ANKRioAN CIrriErsHIP.
But we are not bound 70 resort 70 lmplicaeon. |
lr 70 the constitutional history OF England to |
1nd an authoritative declarstlen o. some o. the |
United States, II is In the constitution Itself.
Ihe constitution, u 10 true, A. u stood prior 70
the recent amendments, specifies ~ terms, only |
OF cltixeut, but they are very comprehensive In
their character Tue States were mainly pro
hlbited fcoIn passing bills Of attalnder, sr poet
6leio laws, laws impalrinE the obligation Of con-
tracts, and perhaps one or two more. but others
OF the greatest consequence were enumerated, al
though they were only securedt IN exptoss
ment; such as me right OF Sa6sas oorpus, TIE
right OF trial by larry, Of free exercise Oh re-
iistous worship, the rigdt Of free speech and a
ios ,ne Sss discussion o % y puoc nsssae the TsSi
10 be secure against unreasonable searches and
measures, and above all. and including slmost
"a s ,ss fs re S,aS.rs sss sn, ssr q srST
These and SIN Others arc specified In the
original constitution, or In the early amend
%,n., q y s S@oas % ne and a%a anS
Is still stronger for the force of argument, the
rights Of all persons, whether cltxehs or not
but even fine Consultation were silent the
Fundamental privileges and lmmunitiea OF citi-
Eens, a. such, would be no less real aud no less
inviolabe than they now are, IL was not neces-
sary 70 say In woris that the citizens Of the
privileges Of citizens; the privilege Of buying. SCI;
rssing in any lawful employment for a ilyeli-
redress OF injuries, and the like. Their very
citiEenship conferred these privileges. u they
did not poasess them before, And these prvl-
ssrs Of I ssy state or Sot. ishsbltsnts Of federal
| Territories end new oitlAena, inade such hJ an.
nsaaiion Of territory g nslarsllIasion. though
without any statu. as eltliens OF = state, could,
lAy claim 10 every one Of the privileges and i'm.
/ munlties which have been enumerated; among
these none Is more essential and fundamental
/ than the right 10 follow such profession or en-
ploymeni a. each may choose, subject only TO
Uniform regulations equally applicable to all.
| rHf EEcoND QUESTION ~ Tuk CASE.
| II. The next question 70 be determined In this
case Is: Ia a MONOPOLY, or exclusive right, given
IN one person, or corporation, to the exclusion OF
ali others, to keep slanghier-houses in district
| OF nearly twelve huadred square milcs, for the
supply o. meat for great city, ., reaSohabl,
regulation OF that employment which the Legls
lature has right TO imposei"
and Incidcnisf 70, the trade Of a pntcnerPone q
the ordinary occupations Of human life. X
compel q butcher, or rather all the butchers OF
srge S,iy and an :s,snslye district 70 ;slsnie
and pay him toll therefor, Is such q restriction
upon the trade aa materially to interfere with ~
prosecution. Il is onerous, unreasonable, arbl
q police regulatlon. II II were really q polio,
regulation, Il would undoubtedly be within IN,
pouer Of the Legislature; That portion Of the
located below the ctJ, and 10 be subject TO In
spection, kc., Is clearly police regulation. Tha
portion which allows no one but the fayore,
Is not a police regulation, and has not the faint
| est aemblAnce OF one. II u one OF those Arbl
traTy and unjust laws made In the interest OF
aes nave Wh ~ pa,t tIs fes W 2eaE, W
, been 80 deplorahly oppressed and Impoverished
II seems 20 me strange that Il can be viewed II
fne granting Of monopolies, or exclusive priv
legcs 10 individuals or corporations, Ia an lnya
, sion Of the right OF others to choose = lawfu
calling, and an Infringement Of personal liberty
. Al the reiRns Oh Elizabeth and James. A nerc
| struggle for the suppression OF such monopOle'
and for abolishing the prerogatiye Of oreatln
: | them, was made and was successfui. The stAi
: ute OF 2ist James, abolishins monOpoles, wa
one Of those constitutional landmarks Of RnI
O lish liberty which the English nation so highl
q 81 that inheritaace which our fathers brongi
: | with them. This statute abolished all mOnop'
q lies except grants for term OF years TO the II
6 yentor. o. new % maaaiactnre, Inls exeeptlo
= and copyrights Of books, These have aiwaI
= been sustained a. beneficial 10 the state. BI
! all other monopoiles were abolished, a. tenhiu
y | TO the impoveTshmeut Of the people and to II
J reference with their free pursuits. And ey,
!, since that struggle no English speaking peop
+ have ever endured such an odious badge
l. | tyranny.
e il has boon susgeatei that this WAS q me-
legislative act, and that the Bdtlsh ParlIAinen
\ AZ well as our own legislatures, have frequent
8 fos etectins ferries rsIiroais markets and Oh
2 establishments OF publlc kind IL requires h
o . slight acquaintance with legal history tH kno
, that grants thln llnu OF franchises Total
d different from the monopoiles Of commodities
. OF Ordinary calnngs or purnnita. These publ
, franchises can only be exercised under .
. thority from the 0oSernmeni, and the Cover
% ment may grant them on such coalitions -
. secs nt, But even these exciuAiye privileges .
y becoming more and more odlona, and ere guttil
y u be more and more regarded a. wrong In pri
of greatest good OF the people. But 70 cite them
le proof Of the power OF Legislatures 10 create Inc
y monopoies. such as no free and enlightened co
nt mnnity any longer endufea, Appears to me,
,e say the least, vefy strange and Illogical.
b. Lastiy: Can the Federal courts admnlAter
o. lief 10 citizens OF the United States who
is statef OF this Q ea'srtain no doubt. Prior
NJ the fourteenth amendment this could not
u done, except In 4 lev instances. for the want
OF A. Inc great mass Of citizens Of the rnli
States were also citizens OF individual stat
many Of their general privileges and immunit
10 vould be the same In the one capacly As IN
be great body Of municipal laws intended for !
n protection Of person aud property being
% Avs Of the state, aud no provision being ma
nd except In few spscinsd cases. fof any int
a. ference by the General Government beiwee
d. state and Us citilens. the protection Of the
nv Ieges aud immnnltles Except where q citiien
M one state went into smother stAts) was lArg
Ia left TO state laws and STATE courts, where q
~ vaded by the unconstitutional acts OF delinQue
MI OF the State Governments themselves.
Ip- IuE scoPK Or THK FouKftksrH AAksDAHS-
10 Admitting, therefore, that formerly the Sta
IN. were not prohihlted from Infringing any OF
~ fundamental privileges and immgnltles pf &
xens Of the United States, except 10 few sp
ral ned cases, that cannot be said now. Alno6
NV adoption OF the fourteenth amendment. In
Dn- Judgment, Il was the intention Of the peopl,
ne thb country In adopting taAt amendme6t 10 1
hls vide national security against violation by
ce states Of the fundamental rights Of the oltiz
an The nrat section Of this amendment, after
tV | clAnng that all persons horn or naturallzei
nce the Unltad Statea and subject 10 ltA jurisdet
are are citizens OF the United States and OF
cir state wherein they reside, proceeds 10 dec
nnt further that "no State shall make or enforce
Oh law which shall AhrldRe the privileges or I'M
eai mites Of citizens OF the United States; nor
A. any state deprive any person Of hfe, nbert,
lIb- property without due process Of law. nor d
ent 70 any person within ~ Iurlsdletlo'I the es
ese protection Of the lawsn aud that DC laresa =
be have power TO enforce BY Approprlal Isgislal
ich the provisions Of this article,
Of Now, here Is clear prohibition on the 81
ia against making or enforclnR any law which &
rod abrdge the privileges or immunltiea OF cltiz
M OF the United States.
II my views are correct with regard 70 v
emf are the privileges and immunlties Of citizen
,es follows conclusively that any law which es
mn fishes q sheer monopoly, depriving q large c
on OF citizens OF the privilege OF p1rnuinE laS
an employment, does Abrtdae the privileges Of u
leL citizens.
ieS The amendment also prohibits any state {
d q depriylng any person (citzen or otherwis'
and life, liberty, or property, without due procei