, 1874-02-04

- Fl: ~: i. .ss I fs6k: ;n%Ss:7'" III
:. .''..*<::5,.Ntxit r. TT a:-%s ~ .::*' did
- 8: 8. =: =: :. WY" >"::'
,>t $ z ,s.t,,-~ ,on sA,,,t:: -, III qnes-
= i. 5:.s,...r>:.r;. :: tls fgn?t~ II our Con-
':';at: t,':;@'i'in t,H ~: :, ants; as Clauso
- Z: T., *. = ~. ~ IN shall DO Dc de-
IT, . !'5*: = ". If isw or !rG"saiS' aa 10 Tt{s this
-: ,>',i- ~, JlauBo ~ Of tho sano altclc:
- IT,. %''. srty shall not be talon or damaged
=. ,4se without Just compensation" One
counsel for appellants nlakos these points
.a addition: Tho aet is repnsliant to tho -Four
teonth Amendment Of tho Constitution Of thu
Uuted Statea; at'd further, if iR provisions can
bc construed as al Inhibition Of the warollousing
business. except under special conditions, AM, as
comforting tho privilege Of doing tint Kind Of
busineus upon persons able or willing to comply
ara actually complying with these conditions,
then, IL 10 far as j. is not based upon
IL rep,lgpart to soe. q Of Art i, wh1cll
prohibits tho General Assembly from passing
ANY Iocal or special laws "granting to any cor
poration association, or individual, anF special
or exclusive privileges or immunity whatever"
nppear to bo thrown into Tho controversy III
mere nrako.weishts tho real 1norits resting iii
tito two first.
AZ to the rcp,ignaacy Of tho Wnroouso oct to
the LIT clause OF tho Fourteenth Amendment to
tho Constitution Of tho United States, blight
consideration Of that amendment aud judicial
decisions upon it will be sufficient to satisfy any
pno. It
HAS NO APPLICATION TO THIS CASE.
That amendment ia nB follows: "All persons
horn OF natura1izea IN tia United States, or sut-
jcct to tho Jurisdiction thereof, cltizoss OF
The United States and Of the stato wherein they
:e.ido. No State shall male or enforce my lair
rttrh shall abrldgo tho privileges or immunitics
uf citizcns ot tho United States; nor shall any
stato deprive my person OF ife, liberty, or prop
nrty, without due process at law, nor dong to
will 3,,~f1 ,n%So
protection Of tho law" Il IL woll know, tho
nmendmont III question was Incorporated into
TIM Federal Constitution to shield n certain
rlass, who laa boon born and reared III
their newly-acquired rights by their clnarcipa-
tion might bo 30 crippled as to rontlcr them
wholly worthless, III tho discussions upon tho
effect Of thls amendment, in THO sfauGlter-lolso
cases from Now Orleans and the case OF Myra
Eradwcll, plaintiff III orror, taken up from this
Court, it was not ntimated by tho Supreme
Court Of tl,o United States that n regulation by
\ s.ato Legislature Of IL permit or profession,
iii a:sy manner tho liborsy Of Tho citizen, wi1ito
Dr black,
Upon the other proposition,
III. CANNOT PERCEIVE
That the statute eau receive tho construction
roEsenlod for. The seclion relied OH is in these
woSts: Iho General Assembly stall not pass
LEGAL OF special laws in any Of tho following
enumerated cases, that in to say" Then fol-
lows large number of apeeiiica subjects, Tho
tiou, association, or individual any special OF
exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise
wllatoyer." Tho inhibition extends only to
nassiug special laws for nuch purpose But tho
ativo throughout tic State, aud conforu no
immunity, or special Or exclusive privilege or
franchise, upon my intlivldual association, Or
corporation. 1t deals with NIL existing business,
closely associated with tho great agricultural
j1tHFnEt& No In u1ntf,
ly laws, This iH tho whole acopo OF tue Ect,
Dor THE IMPORTANT QUESTION REMAINS
as presented OIL the first two points made by mp.
nelanta. mud srsuetl with gloat ability. Dous
ascrd Of this warehouse OF their property, u tho
scnHo of tho Constitution If it tloos, il is
void, and must bo ~ declared. This Wow Of
appellants seems to 10 basod in great dcgreo
Oil tho TACT TINT tLoy had constructed lhcrwaro
house und established tio business long anterior
to tho cnactulent of this law. Itwua established
whilo tlere waB FREQ ratla III tho business, aud
t!lor charges waro subject to regulation ouy By
competition nl,d agreo,ncNs, nn.l they now claim
q right To continue s,ich 11no without Legislative
restraint. They fnrther Aay thoy llayo complied
with all tho provisions Of the act except tllo one
ro1uiring ths1n to tnlso out Il l!conso mud ontar
two interference thoy Nro deprived Of tho
also of their property, and, NO lopriying
them Of its troo undd antrs.nlnoie' s uao,
taoy aro deprived Of their rropcrty in tho ao1so
gonous argument lies bcen employed to ostal,-
i!sl thfsprnposllos!. usstl the easo Of Eynehamer
=: Ihe People. 3 Kee'na't. A. T.. 37B, ctctl ar
IL N. r. invoked IL support, aud greatly relied
on. We linso looked into tlat c!so, md find
that the Court were divided iii opinion, ant that
tho Jrldgcs who held Tho net nnconititutiolul
ware lett to that aol,u!usIon because. by tho
tcrn,n of the act itaclr. tho property in nto1icat-
ing liquors
wAs HulsarANTIAlt.Y DESTROYED.
and thus tho owner deprived Ut Ills Drunertv nv
nero iegiAlatiyo will. rlcy sng. IT tin a,t by lis
torms had ]'cou applicable nnly to !iauurs iul-
ported Or manufactured after 1t tool uflcct il
would not ls.ye boen Ii, conilict with tue col,nti
tutional proyiaion declaring tint "No poryuu
ehall be deprived Of !ite, liberty, Or pyoporty
without duo process ot law" Tho VtlcAtion Lo-
fore the Court was, "Did tho prohibitions Antl
penalties of The aet puss tho boundaries of ratla-
regulation and police, aud. by tlloir own fnrce
work tho casontinl losa Or obstruction Of the
property. ut Which It vas aimed p Tho lawH
III question subjected tho liquors. to Holzl.ro
and physical destruction alld, M tlloy wcro, In
nyery not!ho Of tho term, l'ropory md ~ rocog.
tiou, deprived Of Ais property. 1twas held tint.