New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-12
SATURDAY, VII

lore, II can be maintained that the eX-
elusive privilege granted by this act TO the
corporation is beyond the power OF the Leg
islature of Louisiana. there can be no just
exception to the validity Of the statute.
The duty imposed as a consideration for
the privilege is we'll defined, and i,s en-.
forcement we'll guarded"
Can anything be clearer than that the
Supreme Court herein placed this grant on
the ground OF municipal power and duty
which could have been given to the corpc.
ration Of a city cha. could receive no other
power be given to a municipal corporation
which is not repealable Can municipal
or police powers and duties be given to or
imposed on private corporation which are
not repealabie by the Legslature9
Besides the title Of the bill and the
grounds set forth by the Supreme Court OF
the United States, and the same are de-
clared by our own Supreme Court, that this
act creates a municipal and police instru-
control Of the Legislature, we have further
evidence of this political character OF
the grant, in the provisions Of the law
which invest this company with the
exclusive power OF prosecuting all viola
tors OF. the several severely penal pro-
visions for the enforcement OF the
sanitary regulations, as to the slaughter
ing of cattle, etc. Here is high gov
ernment power given to this corporation. 1t
name and for the benefit of the State
Surely it will no. be pretended that this is
not political and police power, which may
be repealed by the Legislature; that the
sovereign power has surrendered this most
important and inallenable of all its powers
and functions to private and moneyed
corpCration-the power to enforce san-
tary police. 70 intllct penalties on citizens or
bring suits therefor in the name and in the
interest of the State. 1t would be mon
strous indeed to assume such surrender
and alienation OF the highest OF all the at
tributes of sovereignty.
We conclude this necessarily brief state.
ment OF the argument OF this question with
the following quotations from the high
authority of Cooley on Constitutional Limit
atione, which embodies the recognized doc
trines on this subject in clear and lucid
terms:
"But many things done by the State
| may seem to hold out promises to individu.
ais, which after all can not be treated ae
| contracts without hampering the legisla-
| tive power OF the State in q manner tha,
| would soon leave it without the means OF
| performing its essential functions. The
| State creates ofices, and appoints persons
| to fill them; it establishes municipal corpor
ations. with large and valuable privileget
for it's citizens; by its general laws II holds
out induceme nts to immigration: 1t passes
exemption lave, and laws for the encourage
ment of trade and agriculture; and undel
all these laws greater or lees number o
| citizens expect to derive prot. and emoiu
! ment. But can these laws be regarded al
contracts between the State and the ottic
| and corporations who are benefited, or th'
citizens of the State who expect to be. b,
their passage, go as to preclude their being
| repealed
:.On these points it would seem. that there
could be no difficulty. When the State
employs officers or creates municipal cor
! pO, atoms as the mere agencies OF govern
! ment, it mus: have the power to discOn
tinue the agency whenever 1t ls no Longer
important The trainers of the cOnstitu
ton did not intend to restrain the Statet
in the regulation of their civil institutions
adopted for internal government. The.
may, there fore, discontinue offices and abol
ish or change the organization of municipa
corporal atoms at any time. according TO th
| existing legislative view of state policy
unlees forbidden by their own consritu
tons from doing go. And although munlc
ipal corporations, as respects the prop
erty which they hold and manage to
the benefit OF their citizens. are governe,
by the same rules ana subject to the sam
| liabilities DIS luulNluudie, .SCu tAAo PAopCAey
so tar as it has been derived from the State
or obtained by the exercise of the ordinar,
powers OF government. must be held sui
ject to control by the State, but under tn
restriction that it is not to be appropriate
to uses foreign to those for which 1t ha
been acquired. And the franchises conferred
upon such q corporation, for the benefit Q
it's citizens, must be liable to be resumed q
any time by the authority which may moul
the corporate powers at its Will, and evel
revoke them altogether"
Perhaps the most interesting question
which arises in this discussion is. whether
it is competent for the Legislature to 81
bind up i.s own hands by grant, as Il
preclude it from exercising for the tutur
any of the essential attributes OF sOvel
eighty in regard to any Of the subject
within it's jurisdictions; whether, for instance
it can agree that it will not excl
else the power of taxation, or the polio
power of the State, or the right o
eminent domain, as to certain specific
property or persons, and whether. if it sha
undertake to do go, the agreement is nc
void, on the general principle that the Leg
islature can not diminish the power of 1t
successors by irrepealable legislation, an
that any other rule might cripple an
eventually destroy the government itsel,
If the Legislature has power to do this,
has certainly a very dangerous power, Q,
ceedingly liable to abuse, and may pCssibl
come in time to make the constitutional pr
vision in question as prolific OF evil as
ever has been or is likely to be OF good.