The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-15

urged, because deprves the butchers or the city
oil the use OIL the slaughter houses, and other prop
erty which they have employed in this business,
and OF the business ITSELF which is given over as q
monopoly, unless they viii go to the monopoly for
the privilege OF continuing ii. The Court below
held that the charter the company was for the
purpose Of protecting the health OF the CITY, the
object was within the lawful scope OF legislation,
to be under certain prescribed restrictions,
and ,. for the benefit Of the city, there was
privileges and the charter was valid. It is here
held to be the right and duty OF the Legislature,
the supreme power OF the State, or OF the munich
pality to FIX the location where the business Of
Strengthening for great city may be DONE and
that to do this eectnally II is necessary that ali
persons who slaughter ANIMALS shall do IT In these
places and nowhere ese The law in this
case does not prevent the butchers from
company cannot, under heavy penalties, prevent
any person from Strengthening In their houses. and
II Is bound 70 make ample provision lor the conve
may be questioned, but there IS no justification for
the assertion that the butchers are deprived of the
right TO prosecute their occupations the people or
their daily service OF food. The power exercised
Is IN Its eccentric nature one which has been, up to
the present period in the constitutional history
the country, always considered 10 belong to the
State Upon it depends the security OF social order.
the Lille and path OF the citizen, the comfort OF an
existence in "a thickly populated community the
enjoyment OF private life and the beneficial rise OF
property II extends to the protection of
the lives health, comfort ana quiet OF all persons,
and to the protection OF all property within tile
State. The regulation of the business OF slaugh-
tering animals within city, and the inspection OF
the animals to be killed for meat, and OF the meat
atterward, are among the most necessary and fire.
quent exercises OF this power, and the exclusive
subject is well settled. The answer to
the objections raised under the thirteenth
amendment Is that personal servltude IS there
meant as plainly indicated by the word "involun-
tary." In respect OF the claim under the four
teenth amendment 1t said tnat the first clause OF
primarily d Designed to ' establish the ci is
zenshp OF the negro race born in the
United States and the second article to
give an authoritative definition of citizenship
OF the United States and OF citizenship o! the
eral States This clause recognizes and establishes
citizenship OF State and citizenship OF the United
States as different things and defined by different
characteristics. 1t is the privileges and immun-
ties OF citizens of the United States which pro-
tected by this clause OF the fourteenth amend
ment from hostile action OF the States
and not the privileges and immunities OF citizens
OF the several states. These latter are defined by
Justice Washington, in Corneld vs.. Cayoll, and by
this Court in Wood VS.. Maryland, in a manner TO
embrace nearly all fundamental civil rights for the
establishment and protection OF which organized
society IL instituted. The privileges and immune
ties OF citizens OF the United States, some of which
are enumerated, are distinct from citizens o! the
States, and 1t is those privileges ana immunities
which are by this clause of the amendment placed
under the protection OF the federal government
III patntiffs In error have any privileges and i'm
mun1ties inlrnged by the defendants charter,
which is not conceded, they are such as depend on
citizenship OF the United States, and are not
within the protection OF that clause of
the fourteenth amendment, nor does that charter
deprive plantlffa or property without due process
OF law, nor deny them the equal protection OF the
laws, within the meaning OF the fourteenth amend
ment,
Mr.. Justice Field read the dissenting opinion on
behalf OF the Chief Justice, Justices Swayne, Brad
ley and himself main taining that the right to
follow any ordinary pursuit or avocation OF life
was not given by the law. but by
the Almighty, ana Is merely recognized and pro-
tected by law; that the Legislature OF the State OF
Louisiana has no more right to put all the siaugh-
tering of nearly twelve hundred square miles OF
densely populated territory into the hands of the
few corporators OF this company than 1t had to put
all the ovens Of large city into the hands OF a
privileges few; and holding that, the charter IS
unconstitut ional and void.
Justices Swayne and Bradley also read separate
opinions.