, 1873-05-23

LILO oAHuo1ht1on"JoDDera WILL nnd the country n!
'nitod and as determined against nil thoi
echemca Of plundor as 1t was In tho caBo Of sar
Domingo.
JUSTICE FIELDS OPINION IN THE NEW
ORLEANS CASE.
Hoaders OF The TRIBUNE hayo already boon in.
formed Of tho import of tho opinion Of tho s,1.
promo Court Of tho United States in tho Now
Orleans slaughtor-House Case, which Ind a
nationa1 Importance in giving a construction oi
tho Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
OF tho United statos This opinion WAS, briefly,
that tho Fourteenth Amendment applied almost
exclusively to tho nogro raco; that 1t was In
tonded to glvo them tho full rights and privileges
OF citEona Of tho United states which Ind for
morly boon donfod thom; that It did not pur-
pose taking away from tho stato Governments
any Of their authority for regulating their own
Institutions, md TINT ovon monopoly a.
odious as tlat granted by tho State
Legislature of Louisiana could not bo ro-
gardod as such IN Infringement OF tho
rights aud priviloges Of tho citizen az tho
unitod 8tatos Courts could tako oognizanco Of.
| It ia to be renarked, however, that this was tho
opinion of tho Court only by majority Of ono.
minority opinion WIS submitted by Chiof JUS
tico Chase, and Justices Flold, swayne and
Bradley, which took an entirely different view Of
tho caae, and Of tho gonoral scope Of the Four
teonth Amendment. This minority opinion, by
reason of both tho number and ability Of tho
dissenting Justicos, is worthy Of consideration.
hlr. Justice Field delivered the minority opin-
ion. which holds that tho sanitary necessitics of
Now Orleans wore not Of nature TINT warranted
tho granting Of exclusive privileges for alaugll-
toring to ono company for a number Of years,
They might hnvo been, mud probably wero,
such aa to call for strict police rcgu-
lations; but these could havo boon applied ind
enforced without creating a gigantic monopoly.
It is hold, then, that this monopoly could not bo
granted, er cathcdra, without infringing upon
rights to which every United statos citlzon is
entitled undor tho Constitution. Tho point ia
made that, If exclusive privileges may be grant,
cd to company OF seventeen poraons, they may
alao DO granted 10 ono person, and, If for twen-
ty-lvc years, thcn for century, or forovor. This
much applies particularly to tho Now Orleans
slaughtor-houso case, but tho minority opinion
then proceeds to give m entirely difroront con-
struction to tho Fourtoonth Amendment. Tho
amendment. it ls hold, expressly provides
for tho protection Of tic United ,,statcs
citizons In their civil rights. ThcBo
rights, under. tho Constitution, aro "to
make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties,
give eEidonce, inherit, purchase, lease SELL hold,
aud convey zoal md pcrsonal property" etc. II
is hold that tho Fourteenth Amendment defines
citiaon Of State to bo citlxcu Of tho United
States residing In that stato and, therefore, lis
rights and privileges as q citizon of tho United
States may not DO constrained, and cannot be
altered, by lis State citizenship. Tho broad
conclusion from this minority construction Of
the Fourteenth Amendment is, that tho General
Government now protects tho citizcn Of tho
United States, wherever 1o may reside, from
tho abuses and constrainta Of a monopoly,
no matter whore or how it may bo
croated In other words, according to this
opinion, q citizon can appeal to tho National
local authority which Books to circumaoribe his
privileges as United Statcs citizen by my rar-
tial legislation.
In generalterms the differences between tho
majority and minority opinions Of the Supreme
Court In this instance is precisely tho difference
batwoon tho idea Of 4 centralized and q federal
government. Tho majority opinion, which is
likely to hold long time, is, that tile Fourteenth
Amendment did not interfcro with any Of tho
power Of the States to regulate their own domoB-
tic atfairs, to vote away their own grants, to po
lice their own territory, aud otherwise assert
thcir authority oyor tloir own citlzonB within
their own province. 1t decides that tho citizen
of tho United States sdistinot from citizen of
State, whilo tho minority opinion holds that yir-
tually there iB no citizenship Of statc, but
aimply d residence thorein. II tho opinion of
tho minority could prevail with the single eiroct
Of prohibiting special legislation and crushing
out monopolics in all tho stases without othor-
wiao interfering with their separate and distinct
powers, it would certainly bo q blessing. But 1t
is not to DO denied that tho ultorior consequences
OF this opinion would bo to destroy State exist
enco with State citizenship, and to absorb all
government aud authority into ono centralized
head,-a result for which tho people Of tho
United statoa aro not yet prepared, ii they over
ahall DO.
TIE FATE OF CAPT. HALL.
It is worthy Of note that Dr.. I. T. Hayes him |
solf All Arctic explorer, should hnye surmised |
mutiny, murder, or treachory Of aomo kind as
aoon as lo learned of tho return of several Of |
capt. Halls associates, aud tho announcement