New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-31

tanned. The creation of the monopoly was
not, and is not, a measure necessary 70
protect the public health.
Even admitting that the General Assem-
bly,, in the exercise of its police power, pos
sessef the right TO create such a MONOPOLY,
yet. is such law just and equitablet Does
it not work hardship upon the citizenf IT
it is right, Just and equitable to confer upon
few men the sole and exclusive privilege
of slaughtering all the animals necessary
for fhe daily consumption of upwards OF
three hundred thousand people, would 1t
not be equally right, just and equitable 10
confer upon similar number OF men the
sole and exclusive privilege of baking the
daily bread of the same community, or pro
viding all the vegetables, fruit. fish and
oysters required Cor consumption! Certain
ly one is as right, just and equitable as the
other. If, however, the police power OF the
Legislature can compass such results, and
establish such monopOlies. there is no fur
Their use for bills of sights and written CON
situations.
The citizen has no greater property shan
the freedom of trade and labor, and it can
not be taken FOR private purposes, but only
under public necessities and for pubic
uses. That the provisions OF the act lncOr-
ating the Slaughterhouse Company work
directly 70 interfere with the freedom Of
trade and labor OF the citizen, for solely
private purposes is too clear to admit OF
question The tribute which is exacted for
the sheltering and the Strengthening of ami
mails is not onl y burbensOme, but tyran-
nous imposition on the trade and labor of
the citizen. -
Your committee, therefore, favor the Sc
peal OF This law and the Overthrow of the
monopoly Incorporated by it. not only be-
cause it IL q violation OF public civil rights,
but also because the tribute exacted by
this company in the pursuit of its exclusive
privileges is 700 heavy and works as = hard
ship upon the community, touching more
directly and sensitively the poorer classes.
The teee allowed, together with the permits
sion 10 keep the head, feet, gore and en-
trails of animals, make heavy tax on the
owners OF animals, who, TO save themselves
from loss, compel tina purchasers and cen
sumers OF meat to pay in the market sales.
II 10 thus that the market rates for meats
are high and operate as a burden on CON
sumers. II !. thus that the meats in the
markets Of New Orleans, though situated
at the very doorway of the greatest and
most plentiful catsle-rais;ng country in the
world, are desrer than in any other city CA
the continent.
But it may be ofjecte1ithae che General
Ass" mbly has not the right to take away
the charter of the corporation, and that in
SO doing they would impair the obligation
OF q contract. To this your committee an
swer that the Supreme court Of this State,
in the case OF 1.-THE State of Louisiana VS..
William Pagan 20 Annual, page 545,
decided that the act incorpora ting this COM
pany was not private, but a public act
After showing the distinction between the
character OF d private and public act, the
Supreme Court says that this slaughterhouse
act twas passed in the interest of the public,
its provisions are general, and are binding
upon all persons, and, therefore, it is u
public statute
IN the same case fhe court held that it
Was deemed advisable to incorporate this
company for the public veal. Such being
the fact, this company are public agents,
and the act of incorporation public act.
Ybs judicial department of the State has
decided that this act is public statue. If,
then, it is public statute, it is repealahle.
1t is certainly within the province of the
Legislature to repeal any law of public
nature.
Here we have law which creates a com
pany for the purpose of protecting the
health Of the community, and directing that
said company shall perform certain duties
| 20 secure that health. Such being the fact,
| this company, under its act of incOrpora-
I ton, is simply public agent, what it is
! direc ed TO do are public acts, and, in tie
| intention of the law, for the public good.
| MS law Incorporating lDlB slaughter
| house company is nothing less than a pub
| lie charter. 1t is of the very same nature
as all those statutes which provide for the
| organization aud the government Of mum
| cipa} corporations.
It is a well settled principle of law that
| the Legislature has the right to repeal and
| take away the charter OF any public or
! municipal corporation. All Of the courts OF
| the country have held that when a corpora
|
established for Hile general good, and en-
| lowed by the State alone, the Legislature
| qaav at pleasure modify its charter and in
such modification there is 20 violation OF
! an obligation 0s % contract.
| The repeal Of a pnblic statute affects only
| the power creating it. The rights or priv
| leges extended to ~ corporation by public
| statute are net vested and can at any time be
! withdrawn, without violation of the consti
su,icnal provision relative to the obligation
! Of contracts.
! 1t has been held by the Supreme Court OF
! this State tEat all acts OF Incorporation Of a
! public character are not contracts; that the
| powers conferred or privileges granted are
| not fran ;kisas, hut nothing more than man
dates. anG that at any time such laws can
| be repealed. Che court has again adiudi.
| Gated thai the repeal of a public statute
doe NOT violate any contract or interfere
| with any vested right.
! There IS 30 question but that this law is
mandatory; che very rights and privileges
| granted are mandates; such being the fact
there is nothing III mandate of a Lngisla-
! ture which is of the nature of contract
| If the Legislature has the power to creaie.
| il has the power to modify. If il sees pro
| per 20 establish an incorporation. and
| makes Shat body an agent 20 accompl /
and perform certain public duties, il Ger
taiDly holds tie power GO regulate or abol-
lsh. 1n fact 10 is not q question of power
with the Legislature but one of discretion.
III the enactment of such law was a
measure of public policy it is certainly 9th
| in the province Of the 3.egislatuYe TO alter
or change that policy.
-Four committee again eiireces Che attAn-
'ion OF the Senate 90 the fact that this law
Is declared by the Supreme Court of the
State 60 be public act, and intended for
public seo6, and being public act. inyeIv
| ing u" vested right, or obligation of CON
tract, 1t can be repealed or modified.
Who caa question the power of the g,egis
'ature to repeal law incorporating a town
city or police Jury Yet such law is of the
same nature as this straightforward act n
the General Assembly, saw fit 10 day to take
from the CITY Of New Orleans ito charter
an. place 1t under the direction of a poIice
JGsy, "euld any man doubt The mower Of
such legislation! And if such legislation
was enacted, is il for q moment held thar
all Tho municipal officers would suffer VIC.
lafion of vested right by The CONSIGNMENT
removal !som office Could they hold the
state Fesponsisle for the lmgairing OF . CON
tsacti IT the Legislature SO determines, il
can at asy time repeal the charter of a mn.
nlclpal corporation, and without the viola
ton OF any law &, right, say, THAT q mayor
~ 40 longer mayor, or q councilman or
alderman Is no longer a councilman or al.
deTmsl.
Your committee are, therefore. OF onipiop
That this act is an unjust low. and recon-
mend its repeal.
they think also that 10 is an ace Of nm
wise legislation: that fhe creation of snnh