New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-20
THE MARKETS.


year instead of successive monthly auc-
tons there was lot heard dissenting
voice. 1t seemed to be wise measure,
calculated to save expense, and besides
giving the city large sum Of money at
once, one which would produce more
money than the old way. The markets
were sold and two hundred and sixty thou.
sand dollars realized. No objection was
made, and matters in connection drifted
on in the regular course uutil the assem-
bling of the Legislature.
Early in the session bill was presented
in the House, ostensibly city measure,
and especially supported by three OF the
city Administrators Of variant politics,
which prohibited the existence of other
than the public markets within certain
limits, and annihilated the law OF 1866
which had established them.
The bill met with violent, but weak
and unorganized opposition. Its friends
pushed it with energy and advocated it
with ability. The laws Of health, the
rules Of sanitary perfection and the pros
perity Of the city in its treasury and its
stomach were all marshalled with effect in
its support. The opposition was always
behind hand. Its best speakers and
strongest arguments were always heard or
were significantly suggested twenty-four
hours too late. The bill went through
both houses Of the Legislature with the
certainty and directness of bullet dropped
into q lake.
The free market men became really
alarmed, and went to work in earnest
The sincerest and most honest, and, as is
frequently the case, the most bigoted
member of the House toiled night and
day to collect facts and data for the use of
the Governor. Here the opponents of the
bill were really on time and did their
work well. They convinced the Governor
the measure was one which should not
become law, and he returned it to the
House of Representatives with his veto.
If the bill was to have been killed, now
was the time. But with an apathy that
leads the observer to doubt the business
of their cause, the proprietors Of the
places which were to be put out Of exist
ence and their friends had no arguments
ready to support the veto. The bill
crashed through both houses again with
sound which ought to have awaked the
fee market men to their danger, the ma
jority was SO large.
1t did arouse few of them. One, the
largest dealer in the Second District took
instant measures to protect himself by
obeaining an injunction against the city,
preventing it from enforcing the law.
The city applied for counter injunction,
which Judge Hawkins at first refused,
but subsequently allowed, both cases to
be tried on the same day.
In an elaborate and masterful review Of
the question on the fifteenth of April,
Judge Hawkins concluded tie city had no
interest to protect in appearing in the
case, and declared the act Of 1874 did not
interfere with that of 1866. In a few SEN
fences he stunned the butchers bill.
If the friends of the measure, which
had captured the Legislature and routed
the Governor, had been as lethargic or
Indifferent as were its enemies, the mat
ter might have ended here But they
were not, and appealing to the Supreme
Court, they captured by the logic Of their
case all the judges but one Zone believ-
ing the case was not within the law, and
reversed the decree of the Superior Dis
trict Court
The city's hands were thus united, and
it proceeded through its police power to
shut up the most wealthy and obstreper-
Gus of those whose shops interfered with
the profits of the purchasers of its mar
kets. In every stage Of the case the city
kept faith. The price its markets brought
by the single sale was less, expenses in
Guided, than they brought the previous
year, nevertheless it carried out its bar
gain with scrupulous fidelity.
But the decision of the Supreme Court
was based on its impressions Of the seni-
tary necessities Of the city and the purely
personal standing of the individual lit
igant who relied on his license from the
State to protect him from the encroach-
ments of the city. Early in the year the
City Council passed an ordinance largely
increasing the license of retail butcher
outside of the public markets. 1t was
supposed this sum to be exacted would
effectually preclude the possibility Of the
existence of the smaller fry that the
wealthy owners of the markets deemed it
expedient to crush. The case before the
Supreme Court did not involve the ques-
ton whether the city, having granted a
license under this ordinance, could en-
force the law of 1874, and close the place
of business of the licensee. But it did
establish the validity Of the law of 1874
and distinctly declare the police power of
the city, as granted by the Legislature,
sufficient to enforce it. So far then the
case is ended.
A new phase of the case is now pre-
scented. In enforcing the law through its
police magistrates the city appears to
have caught Tartar. The largest pri-
vate market keeper of the city, whose es-
Enlistment is not only within twelve
| squares of q nuhlic market but absolute