State v. The People's Slaughterhouse and Refrigerating Company

• Decision Date: 01 May 1894
• Docket Number: 11,559
• Citation: 15 So. 408,46 La.Ann. 1031
• Parties: THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. THE PEOPLE'S SLAUGHTERHOUSE AND REFRIGERATING COMPANY
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

15 So. 408

46 La.Ann. 1031

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. THE PEOPLE'S SLAUGHTERHOUSE AND REFRIGERATING COMPANY

No. 11,559

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 1, 1894

APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. Monroe J.

M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, for the State.

Farrar Jonas & Kruttschnitt, Attorneys, for Charity Hospital Appellants.

J. R. Beckwith, for Defendants and Appellees.

OPINION

MILLER, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Civil District Court against the State on its petition for an injunction to restrain defendant from slaughtering animals for human food, until inspected by the State Inspector and the inspection, fees paid as directed by the act of the Legislature No. 87 of 1888.

The defence was, besides the exception of no cause of action, that the act of 1888 is unconstitutional because violative of Arts. 29, 43, 46, 48 and 248 of the State Constitution. The argument in this Court in behalf of defendant is mainly directed to the asserted repugnancy of the act to Art. 248.

The prohibition in Art. 46 is against amending charters of corporations. The act of 1888 does, in its title, express the purpose to amend the Act 118 of 1869, which, besides creating the Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company, was "an act to protect the health of the city of New Orleans," and in its sixth section provided for the appointment by the Governor of an Inspector of Animals intended to be slaughtered for human food. The sixth section in no sense formed part of the charter of the Crescent City Company, though that company was subjected to its operations. It is this sixth section the act of 1888 proposes to amend, and the change is to extend the inspection of animals to be slaughtered, place the inspection under the supervision of the Board of Health, impose certain additional duties on the Inspector, especially with respect to the cleanliness of the slaughterhouse, and change the disposition of inspection fees. An amendment of this section is not an amendment within the purview of the forty-sixth article. It would be a valid enactment if the title of the act of 1888 made no reference to the act of 1869, and hence can not be assailed because the title of the act of 1888 refers to the act of 1869.

We group, for consideration, the objections to the act of 1888 based on Art. 29, to-wit: that the title to the act does not express its object, and that the act embraces more than one object. The purpose of the act was, as already stated, to enlarge the duties of the Inspector of Live Stock so as to extend to all animals slaughtered for human food in all slaughterhouses, and place inspectors under the supervision of the health officers, and to make other changes incident to inspection already stated. From first to last the act deals only with inspection of animals and the supervision under which it is to be conducted. The provisions with respect to fees and their disposition, and other details, are all germane to the subject of inspection, and the reference to the act of 1869 introduces no new subject and for all practical purposes might as well be omitted. Viewing the act as not covering two objects, and holding that the substantial purpose is fairly covered by the title to charge the Board of Health with the supervision of all stock to be slaughtered, the appointment of the Inspector and his fees being incident to that supervision, we hold there is no repugnancy of the act of 1888 to Arts. 48, 29, 43 and 248 of the Constitution. The title of the act is certainly broad enough to cover the appointment of the Inspector, and that appointment is all that this suit involves. We are safe in holding the title sufficient for that purpose. The second and fifth exceptions, that the act attempts to appropriate public money that should go into the treasury, and that the act was local and required notice, we think hardly deserve serious consideration. An act looking to the inspection of all live stock to be slaughtered anywhere in the State, and providing for the inspection commensurate with the scope of the act, can hardly be deemed local. Money derived from taxes and licenses, i.e., the ordinary revenues of the State, can be taken out of the treasury only by legislative appropriations. But fees required to be paid in aid of inspection or health laws are manifestly within the scope of Art. 46 of the Constitution. The remaining exception is that Art. 248 of the Constitution of the State strip...