Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/761

746 FEDERAL REPORTER. �with the state, and corne withm the inhibition of section 10, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States. �Inclining to these views, and considering the state of the litiga- tion between the parties, (as stated in the argument,) we think an injunction pendente lite shouid issue, to the end that the questions involved may be more fully argued and investigated, and the respect- ive rights of the parties fully protected. A. bond to cover damages, if any resuit, shouid be given. It is therefore prdered that an injunc- tion pending this suit issue as prayed for, on complainant giving bond in the sum of $ , conditioned according to law. �BiLLiNas, D. J., (concurring.) I concur in the conclusioA reached by the circuit judge. The case finds that in the year 1869 the com- plainant received from the legislature of Louisiana a grant of a corporate franchise, which was exclusive, to slaughter animais at a place designated in the charter for a period of 25 years; that the constitution of 1879 (articles 248 and 258) attempted to abolish the monopoly features, or the exclusiveness, of all corporations except those contained in the charters of railroads; that the same constitu- tion withdrew from the legislature thepower to regulate the slaughter- ing of animais in cities and parishes, and conferred it upon the mu- nicipal and parochial authorities, in conjunction with the local boards of health ; that neither the legislature nor the proper municipal authority bas ever deolared that either the place or manner of con- ducting complainant's business was opposed to the public good, but that, on the contrary, the municipal and health ofEcers have desig- nated the locus in quo of the complainant's business as within a dis- trict where said business may be carried on, and have prescribed regulations for the eonduct of the business of slaughtering animais, none of which are being violated by complainant. �This case does not fall within the principle that legislative grants of a certain nature may be constitutionally recalled, even where that principle has been pushed to its extreme limit. That principle is that legislatures are clothed by the people with limited power tp bind their successora in any matter of public police, and therefore the courts have held that such a grant could not stand in the way of the subsequent action of the police power. The extremist principle, when applied to this case, would lead to the conclusion that if the proper municipal and health boards, in the exercise of the police power dple- gated to them, declared that complainant's business, either in its ��� �