Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-04-18

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amend
4 Iments. s1 Z
In the Supreme Court of the United
States on the 14th inst. an opinion was de-
livered involving the proper construction Of
the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments
| to the Constitution, which the Court itself
asserts involves the decision of questions
more far reaching and pervading in their
consequences, more profoundly interesting
to the people Of this country, and more i'm
portsnt in their bearing upon The relations
of the United States and of the several
States to each other and the citizens of the
States and of the United States, than have
been before the Supreme Court during the
oficisl life of any Of is present mem
bers. The history of the case VII ich
has drawufrum the Supreme Court this i'm
poTtant opinion, may be briefly stated rs fol
lows: On the 9Th Of March 1869, The Legis-
lature CT Louisiana passed Gan act to pro-
tect the be alih of the city OF New Orleans,
to locate the stock-landings and slaughter
housessandto incorporate the Crescent City
Live Stock Landing and Slaughter House
Company" This act forbids the land
ing or slaughtering of animals whose flesh
isintended for food within the city of New
Orleans and other parishes and boundaries
named and defined, or the keeping or estab-
fishing any ughter-houses, or abbatoirs
within those limits except by the corpora
ton thereby created, which is also limited
to certain places afterward mentioned. Suit
able penalties are enacted for violations
Of this prohibition; and authorises the
company thus incorporated to establish and
erect, within certain territorial limits there
in defined, one or more stock yards, stock
landings and slaughter-houses, and i'm
poses upon it the duty Of erecting on or be-
fore the LIST day of June, 1869, one grand
slaughter-house, of sufficient capacity for
slaughtering 500 animals per day. 1t con-
fers upon this company the exclusive privi-
lege Of doing the slaughtering for the whole
city of New Orleans, and prohibits other
parties from carrying on the business of re-
ceiving and slaughtering live stock under
heavy penalties; thus closing the stock
landings and slaughter-houses then in ope-
ration. This statute was denounced not
only as creating monopoly and comforting
odious and exclusive privileges upon small
number. of persons at the expense of the
great body of the community of New
Orleans, but as depriying all the butchers
ofthe city Of the right to exercise their
trade-the business to which they have
been trained, and on which they depended
for the support of themselves and families;
and the butchers combined to resist this
monopoly. They carried the case to the
Supreme Court of the State, where the COLI
stitutionality of the Law was affirmed They
then appealed to the Supreme Court of the
United States, basing their appeal from the
decision Of the State court on the ground
that exclusive privileges cannot be conferred
on any Of its citizens or corporations by the
Legislature of any State. In the opinion
which was read by Justice Miller, the court
holds that the power that was exercised by
| the Legislature of Louisiana does exist in
the Legislature Of State, and is one that
has always been conceded. The court says:
"The proposition is therefore reduced to
these terIrs: Can any exclusive privilege DE
| granted TO any of its citizens or TO corpoee
ration by the Legislature Of a State? The
| court thinksthat it may be safely affirmed
| that the Parliament of (Nrpof Rritoir,
resenting the people in their legislative func-
| tons, and the legislative bodies ofthis coun-
| try, have from time immemorial to the |
| present day continued to grant persons and !
| corporations exclusive privileges priv |
| leges denied TO other citizens, privileges |
which come within any just definition of |
| the word monopoly as much as those now |
under consideration; and that the power to |
| do this has never teen questioned or denied. |
Nor can it be tTuthfully denied that some |
of the most useful and beneficial enterprises |
set on foot for the general good have been |
made successful by Means Of these exclu-
sive rights, ard could have only been con- |
Quoted to success in that way. Ii any re- |
stTaint is supposed TO exist in the Consti- |
tuition of the State, that is a question al |
ready passed upon by the Supreme Court of |
the State of Louisiana, and is not open to |
review by the Supreme Court of the United |
States"
The other questions passed upon by the
court are much graver, and their elucida-
ton is of the very first Importance. Not
withstanding the opinion is very elaborate,
we give in full that portion which dis
cusses the meaning and scope of the later
amendments to the Constitution of the
United States as follows:
TEE LATE AMENDMENTS.
Plaintiff in error, accepting the issue,
allege that the statue is a violation of the
Constitution of the United States in these
several particulars /: That it creates an in
voluntary seTvitude forbidden by the 18th
Article of amendment that it abridges the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States; that it denies to the plaintiffs
the equal protection of the laws; that it
deprives them of their property without due
process of law, contrary to the provisions
of the first section of the 18th Article of
amendment. This court is thus called
upon for the first time TO give construction
to these articles.
We do not conceal from ourselves the
STeaI responsibility WHICH ILLS uuly &C.
wolves upon US. No questions so far reach
ing and pervading in their consequences,
80 profoundly interesting to the people of
this country, and so Important in their
bearing upon the relations Of the United
States and Of the several States to each
other and the citizens Of the United States,
have been before this court during the Of
fetal life of any of its present members.
We have given every ODDOrtuDitV for a full |
hearing at the bar; we have discussed it
fully and compared views among ourselves;
we have taken ample time for careful DELHI
GRAFTON, and we now propose to announce
the judgments which we have formed in the
construction of those articles, SO far as we
have found them necessary to the decision
of the cases before US, and beyond that we
have neither the inclination nor the right to
60.
Twelve articles of amendment were added
to the Federal Constitution soon after the