New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-01-15
But the Slaughter-house cases! - the
Slaughter.house cases!

and nauntS IN our faces the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States in the
Slaughter-house cases, and in that act he has
been willingly aided by the gentleman from
Georgia. Hitherto, in the contests which
nave marked the progress of the cause Of
equai CIVIL rights, our opponents have ap'
pealed sometimes to custom, sometimes to
prejudice, more often to pride ofrace, but they
have never sought to shield themselves behind
the Supreme Court. But now, for the first
time, we are told that We are barred by a
decision Of that court, from which there is no
appeal. 1t this be true we must stay our
hands. The cause Of equal civil rights must
pause at the command of power whose
edicts must be obeyed till the fundamental
law of our country is changed.
Has the honorable gentleman from Ken
lucky considered we'll the claim he now adj
vances? lift were not disrespectful would
ask, has he ever read the decision which he
now tells us is an insuperable barrier to the
In the consideration of this subject, has
not the judgment of the gentleman from
Georgia been warped by the ghost of the
dead doctrines of State-rights : Has he been
altogether free from prejudices engendered
by long training in that school of politics that
well-nigh destroyed this Government.
Mr.. Speaker, l venture to say here in the
presence of the gentleman from Kentucky,
and the gentleman from Georgia, and in the
presence of the whole country, that there is
not line or word, not a thought or dictum
even, in the decision of the Supreme Court
in the great Slaughter-house cases which
casts shadow of doubt on the right of Con-
gress to pass the pending bill, or to adopt
such other legislation as 1t may Judge proper
and necessary to secure perfect equality be-
fnr fho lovry I'm ncf Do
Sir, protest against the dshonor now cast
upon our Supreme Court by both the gem
tleman from Kentucky and the gentleman
from Georgia. In other days, when the
whole country was bowling beneath the yoke
OF slavery, when press, pulpit, platform,
Congress, and courts felt the fatal power of
the slave oligarchy, remember a decision
of that court which no American now reads
without shame and humiliation. But those
days are past. The Supreme Court of to-
day is tribunal as true to freedom as any
department of this Government, and am
honored with the opportunity of repelling a
deep disgrace which the gentleman from
Kentucky, backed and sustained as he is by
the gentleman from Georgia, seeks to put
upon it.
What were these Slaughter-house cases =?
The gentleman should be aware that de-
cision ofany court should be examined in the
light of the exact question which is brought
before it for decision. That is all that
gives authority to any decision.
The State of Louisiana, by act of her
Legislature, had.conferred on certain persons
the exclusive right to maintain stock-land-
ings and slaughter-houses within the city of
New Orleans, or the parishes Of Orleans,
Jefferson, and Saint Bernard, in that State.
The corporation which was thereby chartered
was invested with the sole and exclusive
privilege of conducting and carrying on the
livestock, landing, and slaughter-house bust
ness within the limits designated.
The supreme court of Louisiana sustained
the validity Of the act comforting these ex-
elusive privileges, and the plaintiffs in error
brought the case before the Supreme Court
of the United States for review. The plain
tiffs in error contended that the act in
question was void, because, Grst, it
established monopoly which was in dero-
CATION of common right and in contraven-
ton Of the common law; and second, that
the grant of such exclusive privileges was in
violation of the thirteenth and fourteenth
amendments of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States.
It thus appears from simple statement of
- case that the question which was before
| rs court was not whether State law which
denied to particular portion of her citizens
the rights conferred on her citizens generally
on account Of race, color, or previous con-
dition of servitude, was unconstitutional be-
cause in conflict with the recent amend
ments, but whether an act which conferred
on certain citizens exclusive privileges for
police purposes was in conflict Herewith, be-
cause In hing an involuntary servitude for
hidden by the thirteenth amendment, OF
abridging the rights and irnmunities of citi-
zens Of the United States, or denying the
equal protection Of the laws, prohibited by
the fourteenth amendment.
On the part of the defendants in error il
was maintained that the act was the exer.
else of the ordinary and unquestionable power
of the State to make regulation for the health
and comfort Of society-the exercise fthe pO'
lice power Of the State, defined by Chancellor
Kent to be ''the right to interdiet unwhole-
some trades, slaughter-houses, operations
offensive to the senses, the deposit of powder
the application of steam-power to prope
cars, the building with combustible materi'
ais, and the burial of the dead in the midst
of dense masses of population, on the gen
eral and rational principle that every person
ought 80 to use his own property as not to
injure his neighbors, and that private inter
ests must be made subservient to the genera
interests Of the community"
The decision of the Supreme Court is t.
be found in the 10th volume Of Wallace's
Reports, and was delivered by Associate
Justice Miller. The court hold, first, thai
the act in question is legitimate and war
rantable exercise Of the police power OF the
State in regulating the business OF stock
landing and slaughtering in the city OF New
Orleans and the territory Immediately con
tiguous. Having held this, the court pro-
ceeds to discuss the question whether the
comforting of exclusive privileges, such al
those conferred by the act in question, Is the
imposing of an involuntary servitude, the
I abridging of the rights and immunities O.
citizens Of the United States, or the denial tc
any person within the Jurisdiction OF the
State of the equal protection Of the laws.
That the act is not the imposition OF al
involuntary servitude the court hold to be
clear, and they next proceed to examine the
remaining questions arising under the tour
| teenth amendment. Upon this question the
court hold that the leading and compre
hsnsive purpose Of the thirteenth, fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments was to secure tht
complete freedom of the race, which, by thu
events of the war, had been wrested from
| the unwilling grasp of their owners. know
no timer or more just picture, albeit painted
| ia the neutral tints of true judicial imparti
atty. of the motives and events which led t.
these amendments. Has the gentleman
from Kentucky read these passages which
now quote? Or has the gentleman iron
Georgia considered well the force OF thu
language therein used? Says the court OF
page 20: .,.;. .,,o
with the other States those which had sldet
-:.L A. rahall;or underfo kor ,inder til