New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-07-04
COURT RECORD.
FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1874.
SUPERIOR District Court.


and Prevention OF Cruelty to Animals:
This action is commenced by the New
Orleans and CarrOltOn Railroad Company,
a CORPORATION domiciled in the parish of
Orleans. against the Louisiana Association
for the Prevention anf Suppression OF
Cruelty to Animals. Plaintiff asks tor an
Injunction against the defendants, prohlt-
ing them from interfering in anyway with
their business, which is alleged to be that
of carving passengers to different points
within the city of New Orleans.
The defendants move to dissolve the In
junction on the ground that they have a
charter from the Legislature OF the State
of Louisiana, adopted in the session OF lo|4
which it is alleged gives them the right 10
inquire into, and punish all persons VINO
are exercising any cruelty toward an
animal or animals III general; that tney are
Incorporated by an act OF the General AS
sembfy, and have a right secured to them
under their corporate name to arrest ana
nunish in accordance with law before the
iudicia, tribunals, and to intiict the pen
alties and fines prescribed by the act.
The railroad company alleges that this
society for the prevention and suppression
of crualtv to animals has lnterfered WIN
its business by attempting to prescrloe
rules and regulations tor the government vi
its business. and that it has served upon t le
company a notice that they are accused OF
committing cruelties on, and OF improper
treatment TO animals, and must desist there
from: and that they have also violated the
rules and regulations OF the association.
The frat question to be considered Is the
rigLt OF the association to prescribe any
rules or regulations defining or determin'
ing what constitutes cruelty to animals A
perusal of the act fails to disclose uenm-
ron of. or a penalty for the etfense known
as cruelty to animals but leaves 1t to the
discretion of the association to determine
what shall constitute cruelty to animals.
It ia TO determine under this statute what
Constitutes and would be considered cruel
treatment of an animal.
The railroad company alleges that this
act is unconstitutional because 1t vests
legislative power in the association. The
nrincipIe of the constitution and the law Is
FOO well settled on this question to need
any reference to authorities on the subject.
The constitution provides that the Legisla-
tura alone is empowered and authorized TO
make and enact laws and regulations. The
defining of crime is legislative act. The
prescribing of the penalty is a legislative
act and can only be declared by the Legls-
lature. The Legislature have tailed IN TINS
act organizing this society to dehne or DE-
termine i'll any manner what would make
the question, what constitutes the crime OF
cruelty to animals ineligible.
Cruelty to animals, under the common
law, is a crime, and has been so enacted, IN
sections Sl5 and SIG of the general statutes
of the States. "Whoever shall wantonly
and malicously kill horse, mule, jackass,
| COW, hog or dog, the property OF another
| The property of another Is there evidently
| used to designate another branch; that 49,
| to enable the person whose property mas
been DESTROYED 10 recover the value there
| of. and in addition, and the wrong-doer IS
| subject. in addition thereto, to fine and
penalty for the act Article Sl5 OF the Re
yised Statutes says: ''WhOever shall wan
tonly MAIN, disable, etc, any OF the ami
mails specified in the foregoing section, shall
| be fined not exceeding $lO0." Shall be
| fined for doing the act, and the person who
owns the property is secured the full value
of the property on which such injury mas
| been done. SO the general law OF the
State recognizes the common law doc
| tr;ne that cruelty to animals is crime.
| This statute, then, can have no such pur-
| pose in view jn its enactment. This must
| have been for another and different pur-
| pose: that Cf Furnishing persens who mall
| ciously and viciously undertake to abuse,
main or maltreat animals. l think the
| Revised Statutes recognize and adopt the
! common law definition OF cruelty to ami
| mails, and provides penalty for any abuse
| or vicious conduct by persons on them, and
also provides their value may be recovered
| from whoever Injuries them. SO there could
| be no such object as that which is indicated
| in the title of this Society for the Proven
tion and Suppression Of Cruelty to Animals,
because the law had already provided
penalties and punishment for such conduct.
| But here a society is organized and is an-
| thorized to infict penalties and to arrest
| property take it from its ordinary usage or
| destination and place it in other places, and
| finally to dispose of it, and to recover
| heavy penalties against the persons who
| are accused of misusing in the estimation
! of this society, and the revenues or pecu-
| MARY rewards arising from such action seem
| to be devoted to the purpose of enrichlng
| the individuals who are selected by this act
| to carry into effect its provisions.
| The act is entitled an act to incorporate
! the Louisiana Association for the Proven
| ton and Suppression OF Cruelty to Animals.
| If there was no law on the subject which
| gave to all persons the right to suppress or
| to punish persons who had inflicted cruelty
| to animals, then this statute would have
| been proper under the circumstances. but a
| statute of this character, which is a private
| act IN its nature for the benefit OF lnd1vl-
Guals, is not a public statute. 1t nowhere
| defines crime, or determines penalty. 1t
| is simply, then, bounty given to indivi-
mary affairs, or to exercise advantages IN
some other way.
Objects as set forth iu some of the sec
tiops. four and five for instance, subordinat-
ing the police authorities to this associa-
ton and placing them under command OF
the association or any of its declared oth-
cials is simply absurd. The idea that the
functions of a police officer shall be vacated
and his office declared vacant because he
refuses to obey the mandates or commands
of the president of an association OF this
character under title of this kind is too
absurd to receive any comment. lt Is sim
ply without any pretense of right. The
constitution declares that officers shall be
selected in the form provided for by law;
thew shall be either elected or appointed by
those who have been elected, and their
Offices can be vacated in no other way than
that provided for by law, either after
judici al hearing or where the statute Great
ing the office has provided IN some way
how it shall be determined, or where the
incumbent resigns his office. But statutes
of this character are not uniform on our
statute books.
The late Legislature saw proper IN an
other class of legislation to declare that GER
tain acts should work forfeiture OF GER
tain offices. That question has been before
the Supreme Court and pronounced to De
| without any effect at all. State officers can
not be divested of Offices simply by failing
to do any particular thing prescribed by
another statute at the instance OF another
iunctionary or officer. What makes this
statute more remarkable and extraordinary
and develepes its enormity more than any.
thing else is the fact that the statute itself
! gives to an outside person, mere
| incorporation, the president of an assO-
citation, the power to vacate and nullify
the offices of public officers. Such pre-
| tensions are enormous. It is simply