Appellants
Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans; The Livestock Dealers' and Butchers' Association of New Orleans
Appellees
The Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter House Company; State of Louisiana
Appellants' Claim
That the state's establishment of a monopoly in stock slaughtering violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
John Campbell, J. Q. A. Fellows
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
T. J. Durant
Justices for the Court
Salmon Portland Chase, Nathan Clifford, David Davis, Ward Hunt, Samuel Freeman Miller (writing for the Court), William Strong
Justices Dissenting
Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Noah Haynes Swayne
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
14 April 1873
Decision
The state of Louisiana was within its regular police powers to protect publichealth to establish a monopoly slaughterhouse down river from New Orleans.
Significance
Although the court ruled that the state-established slaughterhouse monopoly was legal, it ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, originally intended to protect the civil rights of freed slaves, also protected other citizens against hostile action by state governments. However,the decision favored the state'sown interpretation of when such rights would be violated.
The Slaughterhouse Monopoly
On 8 March 1869, the state of Louisiana created a 25-year monopoly on livestock slaughtering in the area of New Orleans, including three parishes of the state. The slaughterhouse was to be established down-river from New Orleans, and butchers who wished to slaughter animals would be required to rent space for that purpose at the facility built by the Crescent City Live Stock Landingand Slaughter House Company. The purpose of the law was to prevent butchersand others from landing stock throughout the city of New Orleans, driving theanimals through the streets, and slaughtering them on various premises scattered throughout residential neighborhoods. The movement of the stock, holdingthem in pens through the city, slaughtering them and leaving animal waste and blood in different districts of the city constituted a major threat to public health and safety.
By confining all slaughtering operations to one locale--distant, and down-river from the city--the stench and waste from the slaughterhouse would not pollute the city. However, butchers complained about being forced by the state topay rent to the established monopoly company for the space to slaughter their own animals. The state, they claimed, had interfered with their business.
In arguing against the state monopoly, the attorneys for the butchers' associations brought a new line of argument that would have far-reaching implications. While there were traditional common-law arguments to be made against a state monopoly, the attorneys added a new line of thinking by pointing out thatthe Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution prohibited servitude and the taking of rights without due process of law. Even though theseamendments had been introduced to protect the former slaves, the attorneys argued, the Constitution could not specifically offer special protections to former slaves without also offering those protections to all citizens.
Monopoly as "Servitude"
After discussing the history of servitude and slavery, the attorneys for theappellants pointed out that slavery had taken many forms in the past, one ofwhich was to subject individuals in specific areas to special restrictions ontheir rights, by "enthralling" the land. The attorneys claimed that the actof establishing the state monopoly in slaughtering made three parishes of thestate "enthralled ground," by eliminating a specific right to conduct business in those three parishes. They further pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment, for the first time, established citizenship in the United States and made it unconstitutional for any state to deny the rights of citizens to anyone within their state. One right of citizenship was the right to conduct business, and the state had taken that right away, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Miller, writing the opinion of the Court, argued that butchers couldstill exercise their right to conduct their business, it just had to be donein the state-established slaughterhouse. As long as the rate charged by the monopoly was fair and did not discriminate, the butchers could not claim thattheir rights had been invaded. He further pointed out that the intent of theFourteenth Amendment had been to specifically overturn the Dred Scottdecision of 1857. That decision had ruled that slaves and former slaves werenot citizens and that they could not bring suit in federal court. Without theFourteenth Amendment, former slaves would have been governed in court proceedings by the pre-Civil War Dred Scott ruling. However, by defining citizenship in the United States, and by stating that the previous condition ofservitude did not diminish citizenship, the amendment made it possible for former slaves to exercise all of their rights as citizens, including court actions. Hence, Miller generally limited the effect of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment to former slaves.
In their dissents, Justices Field, Bradley, and Swayne showed that the logicof applying the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to all citizens and therights to conduct business was a telling argument. Bradley argued that a citizen was not a free man unless he could follow his own trade. However, Bradleybelieved the state could force butchers, under police power, to slaughter incertain districts, but could not force them to do so in a state-establishedmonopoly slaughterhouse. Field and Swayne believed that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments should apply very broadly, beyond former slaves.
The decision showed that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, although originally intended to deal with the civil rights of former slaves, could be much more broadly applied. The amendments would later prove very useful in preventing states from interfering in business expansion, and would become essential legal tools in the growth of American business in the last decades of the nineteenth century. However, the ruling favored the state of Louisiana, and showed that the Court would not interpret the FourteenthAmendment as protecting any rights of citizens against action by states unless the rights were specifically Federal rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or by existing federal statute.
In 1884, the issue once again came before the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, inButchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., the state of Louisiana haddecided to break the monopoly and to allow butchers to operate their own slaughterhouses. The monopoly company, Crescent City, sued to regain sole rightsto the business, arguing that the state had issued a binding monopoly contract to the company. The legislature and the constitution of Louisiana permittedthe state to break the monopoly, but a circuit court ruled in favor of the monopoly. The Supreme Court overturned the circuit court, and affirmed the right of the state to break its own contract in this case. While appearing to side in 1873 with Crescent City Live Stock Company, and then appearing in 1884to side against it, the Court's actions seem to be inconsistent. In fact, theCourt in both cases decided in favor of the state's ability to control its own behavior in this area of rights.
Related Cases
Equal Protection
Equal protection is the constitutional right of all people and all classes ofpeople in the United States to share in the rights and privileges enjoyed byother people and classes of people in similar conditions and circumstances.The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution serves as the foundation of theequal protection guarantee and requires that the states treat individuals andgroups or classes of individuals the same given the circumstances.
Equal protection cases do not question the validity of laws in most cases, but rather the application of laws; for example, when laws are applied to onlycertain members of the population. While no hard and fast rules exist for determining the constitutionality of state classifications, the Supreme Court relies on different tests for making this determination, such as whether a classification serves a legitimate purpose or whether it is being used to discriminate on the basis of a classification such as being a Native American or animmigrant. Landmark equal protection cases and laws of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have addressed the rights of various ethnic groups, homosexuals, the disabled, and the poor.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law Minneapolis, Minnesota: West Publishing, 1998.
Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans; The Livestock Dealers' and Butchers' Association of New Orleans
Appellees
The Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter House Company; State of Louisiana
Appellants' Claim
That the state's establishment of a monopoly in stock slaughtering violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
John Campbell, J. Q. A. Fellows
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
T. J. Durant
Justices for the Court
Salmon Portland Chase, Nathan Clifford, David Davis, Ward Hunt, Samuel Freeman Miller (writing for the Court), William Strong
Justices Dissenting
Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Noah Haynes Swayne
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
14 April 1873
Decision
The state of Louisiana was within its regular police powers to protect publichealth to establish a monopoly slaughterhouse down river from New Orleans.
Significance
Although the court ruled that the state-established slaughterhouse monopoly was legal, it ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, originally intended to protect the civil rights of freed slaves, also protected other citizens against hostile action by state governments. However,the decision favored the state'sown interpretation of when such rights would be violated.
The Slaughterhouse Monopoly
On 8 March 1869, the state of Louisiana created a 25-year monopoly on livestock slaughtering in the area of New Orleans, including three parishes of the state. The slaughterhouse was to be established down-river from New Orleans, and butchers who wished to slaughter animals would be required to rent space for that purpose at the facility built by the Crescent City Live Stock Landingand Slaughter House Company. The purpose of the law was to prevent butchersand others from landing stock throughout the city of New Orleans, driving theanimals through the streets, and slaughtering them on various premises scattered throughout residential neighborhoods. The movement of the stock, holdingthem in pens through the city, slaughtering them and leaving animal waste and blood in different districts of the city constituted a major threat to public health and safety.
By confining all slaughtering operations to one locale--distant, and down-river from the city--the stench and waste from the slaughterhouse would not pollute the city. However, butchers complained about being forced by the state topay rent to the established monopoly company for the space to slaughter their own animals. The state, they claimed, had interfered with their business.
In arguing against the state monopoly, the attorneys for the butchers' associations brought a new line of argument that would have far-reaching implications. While there were traditional common-law arguments to be made against a state monopoly, the attorneys added a new line of thinking by pointing out thatthe Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution prohibited servitude and the taking of rights without due process of law. Even though theseamendments had been introduced to protect the former slaves, the attorneys argued, the Constitution could not specifically offer special protections to former slaves without also offering those protections to all citizens.
Monopoly as "Servitude"
After discussing the history of servitude and slavery, the attorneys for theappellants pointed out that slavery had taken many forms in the past, one ofwhich was to subject individuals in specific areas to special restrictions ontheir rights, by "enthralling" the land. The attorneys claimed that the actof establishing the state monopoly in slaughtering made three parishes of thestate "enthralled ground," by eliminating a specific right to conduct business in those three parishes. They further pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment, for the first time, established citizenship in the United States and made it unconstitutional for any state to deny the rights of citizens to anyone within their state. One right of citizenship was the right to conduct business, and the state had taken that right away, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Miller, writing the opinion of the Court, argued that butchers couldstill exercise their right to conduct their business, it just had to be donein the state-established slaughterhouse. As long as the rate charged by the monopoly was fair and did not discriminate, the butchers could not claim thattheir rights had been invaded. He further pointed out that the intent of theFourteenth Amendment had been to specifically overturn the Dred Scottdecision of 1857. That decision had ruled that slaves and former slaves werenot citizens and that they could not bring suit in federal court. Without theFourteenth Amendment, former slaves would have been governed in court proceedings by the pre-Civil War Dred Scott ruling. However, by defining citizenship in the United States, and by stating that the previous condition ofservitude did not diminish citizenship, the amendment made it possible for former slaves to exercise all of their rights as citizens, including court actions. Hence, Miller generally limited the effect of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment to former slaves.
In their dissents, Justices Field, Bradley, and Swayne showed that the logicof applying the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to all citizens and therights to conduct business was a telling argument. Bradley argued that a citizen was not a free man unless he could follow his own trade. However, Bradleybelieved the state could force butchers, under police power, to slaughter incertain districts, but could not force them to do so in a state-establishedmonopoly slaughterhouse. Field and Swayne believed that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments should apply very broadly, beyond former slaves.
The decision showed that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, although originally intended to deal with the civil rights of former slaves, could be much more broadly applied. The amendments would later prove very useful in preventing states from interfering in business expansion, and would become essential legal tools in the growth of American business in the last decades of the nineteenth century. However, the ruling favored the state of Louisiana, and showed that the Court would not interpret the FourteenthAmendment as protecting any rights of citizens against action by states unless the rights were specifically Federal rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or by existing federal statute.
In 1884, the issue once again came before the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, inButchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., the state of Louisiana haddecided to break the monopoly and to allow butchers to operate their own slaughterhouses. The monopoly company, Crescent City, sued to regain sole rightsto the business, arguing that the state had issued a binding monopoly contract to the company. The legislature and the constitution of Louisiana permittedthe state to break the monopoly, but a circuit court ruled in favor of the monopoly. The Supreme Court overturned the circuit court, and affirmed the right of the state to break its own contract in this case. While appearing to side in 1873 with Crescent City Live Stock Company, and then appearing in 1884to side against it, the Court's actions seem to be inconsistent. In fact, theCourt in both cases decided in favor of the state's ability to control its own behavior in this area of rights.
Related Cases
- Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884).
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
Equal Protection
Equal protection is the constitutional right of all people and all classes ofpeople in the United States to share in the rights and privileges enjoyed byother people and classes of people in similar conditions and circumstances.The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution serves as the foundation of theequal protection guarantee and requires that the states treat individuals andgroups or classes of individuals the same given the circumstances.
Equal protection cases do not question the validity of laws in most cases, but rather the application of laws; for example, when laws are applied to onlycertain members of the population. While no hard and fast rules exist for determining the constitutionality of state classifications, the Supreme Court relies on different tests for making this determination, such as whether a classification serves a legitimate purpose or whether it is being used to discriminate on the basis of a classification such as being a Native American or animmigrant. Landmark equal protection cases and laws of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have addressed the rights of various ethnic groups, homosexuals, the disabled, and the poor.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law Minneapolis, Minnesota: West Publishing, 1998.
User Comments Add a comment…