The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-02-07

In this last case from Minnesota
the Supreme Court of that State,
reversing the lower Court, comes to
the rescue of constitutional "civil
government, as we have had it
handed down to us as a precious
legacy, and together with the 1ndi:
ana Court has clearly defined the
limit Of the police power for the
Commonwealths of this country.
FOURTH PROPOSITION.
The State cannot in arg trade
establish a monopoly either for a."
individual or for itself By engaging IN
It. though 1t may restrict, regulate or
prohibit 1t altogether under the police
po~er.
The Slaughter House cases in O.
S. Supreme Court reported in l6
Wall, sc. are claimed to support the
doctrine of power in State to
create trade monopolies. but the
State Acts were there upheld by the
Court not on the ground as sustain
ing a trade monopoly, but simply on
the ground that the State had no
right to define a "locality where
slaughtering should be done" (p.
6l)
The Court, by Justice Miller, page
81, l6 Wall. takes care distinctly to
deny that It is a monopoly, and to
disafirm the power of the State to
create trade monopoly. The Court
says, "it does not, as has been
asserted, prevent the butcher from
doing his own slaughtering. The
butcher thea is still permitted to
slaughter, to prepare and to sell his
own meats And the Court denies
that the Act operated to "deprive
the butchers of the right to labor in
their occupation" Page 81. And
declared that the "Act did not
destroy the business of the butcher
or: seriously interfere with this
pursuit. but was simply restraint
and regulation" within the police
power. Is Wall, 6l62.
This is vastly different from the
usurpation aud monopoly of the
trade which the State here has
attempted under the guise Of the
police power.
The principle of the slaughter
House" cases is the strongest argu
ment against the monopoly by the
State, for itself OF individuals, Of
trade under the guise of the police
power, or the granting of exclusive
privilege of trade under the pretence
of the exercise Of that power, and
confirm the doctrine that if there be
trade at all it must be by the
individual under restrictions and
regulations common to all in view of
the common good and welfare.
The original question in the
Slaughter House" cases could
never have arisen under the Constitu-
ton, because all forms of monopolies
are distinctly forbidden in Section
II, Article /, of our Constitution,
which provides that "no person shall
be subjected in law to any other
restriction or disqualification in regard
to any personal rights than such as
are laid upon others under like
circumstances"
Aud Section Al, Article l,
reserves the rights and powers not
delegated.
These articles of our Constitution
as interpreted by our own Supreme
Court, allow no exclusive privilege tc
any person from the State, and the
Acts of the Legislature authorizing
the cities to go into private business
F and give exclusive privileges, or the
attempts of the cities with or without
the authority of the Legislature to &c
into private business, have been
adjudged unconstitutional and void
See Feldmann VS.. City Council, q
j, s. c., 81; Mauldin VS.. City Council
33 S G., p l.
And in Feldmann Us. City Council,
% S. C., p. 63, the Supreme Court
referred to Article l, Section al, ot
the Constitution as al express restric
ton upon the power of the Legisla
ture to exercise its power for private
: business and to the duty of the
Court to declare it void
So that the Constitution of this
State is clear and full to the point
J; against the authorization Of any
monopoly or private business created
by or engaged in by the State.
Under it monopoly in trade by the
State in behalf of itself or IN favor o.
an individual cannot lawfully exist.