New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-17


spected is allowed for the inspection, one
half to be retained by the inspector, the
other half to the Auditor of Public Ac-
counts, for what purpose is not stated-it
may be as q perquisite. As the number Of
slaughterhOuses will not be limited if the
bill be passed, and each butcher can
slaughter in his own house, the inspector
will be compelled to attend at each OF
thems it il, therefore, evident that the CON-
pensation would be inadequate, Tor the five
cents for each animal slaughtered, taking
the number heretofore killed each year as
q test, viz: $50 900 each year, the amount at
that rate would be leee than $4OOO per an
mum, which, divided among the inspectors
and the number of deputies required to at
tend all the slaughterhouses, would not be
enough to induce honest men to undertake
the work.
The scattered private slaughterhouses
would be beyond the proper surveillance of
the police, and there being no organized
company interested in enforcing the SAM
rary provisions Of the law, it is to be pre-
sumed that they would not be enforced.
As we have satisfactory establishment,
located properly on the left bank of the
river, below the city, We do not think proper
to recommend a change.
Our investigation has shown that the
butchers have always opposed the estab-
considerations and interested motives, and
that public health, public comfort and the
supply of good healthy food require their
establishment and maintenance under
proper regulations.
We have further examined the law upon
the right Of thu Legislature to repeal the
charter of the Crescent City Live Stock
Landing and Slaughterhouse Company, but
we think it clear that the Legislature has
al = ohor nf fho
cent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter
house Company, and thereby destroy the
valuable franchises conferred on it without
making compensation therefor, as is re.
qui,ed in cases where private property is
taken for public use.
The Supreme Court of this State has de-
clared that what tie State can do itself it
can do through q corporation. % A., 554;
IL A., 81. The Supreme Court of the
reiterates the same doctrine in these words:
THAT whenever Legislature has the
right 10 accomplish a certain result, and
that result is best attained by means OF q.
corporation, it has the right to create such
q corporation, and to endOw it with the
powers necessary to effect the desired and
lawful purpose, seems hardly to admit Of
debate. l6 Wallace, .. "a.
In the same cases, speaking OF the act OF
Landing ana Slaughterhouse Company, the
court says:
ut can re adily be seen that the interested
vigilance of the corporation created by the
Louisiana Legislature will be more efficient
in enforcing the Limitation prescribed for
the stock landing and slaughtering business
for the good of the city than the ordinary
efforts of the officers of the law. 10 Wal
lace, p. IS
Again, the same court, in the same cases,
says:
1--WE are not able to see that these privi-
leges (aIluding to those given to the Cres-
cent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter
house Company are specially odious or OBJ
jactionable. The duty imposed as a consid-
Grafton for the privilege is we'll defined and
its enforcement well guarded Id. p IS"
This language is conclusive that in the
opinion of the court the act of 1869 created
q contract between the State and the
SlaughterhOuse Company. The company
has expended large sums of money IN con-
structing the necessary buildings and ap-
paratus to enable it to perform the duty
thus imposed on it, and in consideration OF
that expenditure and the performance OF
the duties imposed on it by the act. the
company is entitled to the exclusive privi-
lege granted to it by the State for the period
of twenty five years.
In the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice
Field in the same cases, he says: I'm the
law in question there are only two provi-
sions which can properly be called police
regulations, the one which requires the
landing and slaughteriDg of animals below
the city of New Orleans, and the other
which requires the inspection Of the ami
malls before they are slaughtered. When
these requirements are complied with. the
sanitary purposes of the act are accom-
plished. In all other particulars the act
Is q mere grant to a corporation created by
it, of special and exclusive privileges by
which the health of the city Is in no way
promoted. Id p. 81" He then proceeds to
saw that 1.-The act OF LOUISIANA presents the
naked case, unaccompanied by any public
considerations where q right to pursue
joyed by every citizen and IN connection
with v hich thousand persons were daily
employed, is taken away and vested ex
cluslvely for twenty fve years for an extern
sive district and q large population in q
single corporation, or its exercise is tor that
period restricted to the establishments Of
the corporation, etc." Id p. 50.
Yet the Supreme Court OF the United
States recognized and affirmed the constltu-
tionality of this exclusive grant.
The exclusive privilege of compelling all
butchers to pursue their calling in the es
Establishments of the corporation was the
valuable part of the legislative grant.
and was denounced by the minority Of
the Supreme Court as oppressive and that
it could in no manner be sustained as an
exercise OF the police power OF the State.
The bill under consideration prop ,ses to
annul this exclusive privilege accorded to
the Crescent City Live Stock Landing and
Slaughterhouse Company in defiance of
the provisions OF the constitution Of the
State and of the United States, which pro-
hibits the enactment Of any law impairing
the obligation of contract.
Franchises like those conferred on the
Crescent City Live Stock Landing and
Saughterhouse Company, like ferry rights
are partly of q public and partly OF prl-
vate nature. S, far as the public health Is
concerned, they are publici juris: 80 far az
they require capital, the expenditure OF
money, the exclusive right to have all ami
mails killed in the Establishments of the
corpOratiOn, and tho revenues derived
therefrOm are concerned, they are prirati
juris. Certain duties and burdens are I'M
posed on the grantees, who are compen-
stated therefor by the privilege OF exacting
certain rates or tolls for landing and
Strengthening, and the security from spolia-
ton arising from the irrevoraole nature OF
the grant. The State may leglala'e touch
ing them so tar as they are publici juris;
thus laws may be passed punl.hins neglect
or misconduct in conducting the operations
Of the Strengthening or landing OF animals,
and to secure the efficient execution Of the
duties Imposed upon the company, but the
State can not take away the franchises
granted or pass laws which in effect DE- stroty
the exclusive privilege conferred On the
company and the revenues aud profits to De
derived therefrOm. This doctrine is we'll
expoupded in case of the people vs.. New
York: 80 Barbour, lO2 and ll6
Tho authority of the LEGISLATURE to en-