New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-02-01

go tba+ the Snpreme court of this State,
in the case OF 1.-The State OF LOUISIANA vs.
William Fagan," - Annual, page 5iJ,
decided that the act incorporat ting this com
many was not a private, but d publlc act.
hfter showing the distinction between the
character of a private and public act, the
Sunreme Court saws that this slaughterhouse
act was passed in the interest of the public,
its provisions are general, and are binding
uDon all persons, and, therefore, 1t 10
public statute
In the same case the 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.
The judicial department Of the State has
decided that this act is a public statue. II,
then. it is public statute, it is repealable.
1t is certainly within the province OF the
Legislature to repeal any law Of public
nature.
Here we faye a 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
to secure that health. Such being the fact,
this company, under its act Of incOrpora-
ton, is simply public agent. what it Is
directed 10 do are puuilc acts, and. III tie
intention Of the law, for the public good.
This law incorporating this slaughter
house company is nothing less than pub
lie charter. 1t is of the very same nature
assill those statutes which provide for the
organization and the government of mum
Cipal corporations.
1t is well settled principle Of law that
the Legislature has the right 20 repeal and
take away the charter OF any public or
municipal corporation. All of the courts of
the country have held that when Il corpora
ton is the mere creature of legislative will,
established for the general good, 'and en-
lowed by the State alone, the Legislature
may at pleasure modify its charter, and in
such modification there is no violation of
an obligation or a contract.
The repeal Of public statute affects Snly
the power creating i. The rights or priv
leges extended to a corporation by public
statute are not vested, and can afany tiN4 be-
withdrawn, without violation OF the c5nsti-
tutional provision relative to the obligation
Of contracts.
1t has been held by the Supreme Court of
this State that all Acts of Incorporation OF a
public character are not contracts; that the
powers conferred or privileges granted are
not fran hises, but nothing more than inan-
dates, and that at any time such laws can
be repealed. The court has again adiudi
Gated that the repeal Of d public statute
does not violate any contract or interfere
with any vested right.
There is no question but That this law is
mandatory; the very rights and privileges
80. ~ "otI;n1r ~ :, mandate Of = =, ,,i.ln
tmre yIirL is nf tho onturc OF a contract.
yf +I,a faaislatnr. lbs III, nnwer 70 crpa,u
= hos tho ,1n,rrr IA mndifv II If 500. nr,-
non 90 .dt,LIi.I, an ACCOMMODATION .,n1
,nalas that hodv an aGrn+ 10 ACCOMPLISH
mi nerforp Certain nnhI;c duties il GER
t.;nIr holds u q nnweI 20 regulate or a}oI-
;sh IN f,ct il ia nor q question of mower
with the Legislature hut one OF discretion.
If the enactment OF such Law WAS a
measure of pubic policy il is certainy with
in the province OF the Legislature to alter
or change that policy.
Your committee again directs the a'ten-
ton of the Senate 20 the fact that this law
il declared by the supreme Court Of the
State TO be public act. and intended for
public good, and being public act. involv
ing no vested right, or obligation OF con
tract, il can he repealed or modified.
Who can question the power Of the Lesis-
lature to rcpr;,l law incorporating u town,
city or police jury? Yet such law il of ;he
same nature AS this slsughterhouse act Ii
the General Assembly Sa " tit TO-DAY 70 tax"