OCR Interpretation

The New Orleans crescent. (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, February 14, 1869, Morning, Image 5

Image and text provided by Louisiana State University; Baton Rouge, LA

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015775/1869-02-14/ed-1/seq-5/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for 5

r was coquettishly tnsed in a heavy green
silk under jape, with over dress of magaleat
Brussl loe aend white tile drapped with pink
loses-dotolletBe and short sleeved, showing to
ouch advantage her riohness in creamy white
shoulders sand arms. A caplete set of diamonds
and miraeulouly small white sati slippers.
Kiss A-e B-r, an heiress, whioh the
war has little affected except favorably, the lapse
of yeers developing the dark-eyed pensionaire of I
the Ursulines Convent into a blooming girl of
eighteen. Her maje eio appearance comported
well with her blue silk dress and tulle penier "
strewn with flowers. From her ear hung splendid e
drops of lozenge shaped opals encircled with bril
ulant diamonds, and her neck was imprisoned in a .
ansmive gold necklace artlatioally chased. Truly, n
she was admirable, one of the queens of this as.
semblage of beauty.
Mrs. T. F. F-r was attired magulfioently In a a
jope of cherry-colored silk, panlerof point d'Alen- r'
con, berths of same over a corsage d6eolteM; e
diamonds and white roses in the hair, diamond I
ear.drops, costly bracelets, slippers of cherry. I
colored satin. i
The whilom Miss L. T--s, belle of Esplanade I
street, now Mrs. J--n P-k, of Royal street, i
wore a rich mauve and white colored silk, panler ti
and wings of white tulle, dotted with Parma violets 11
and daisies; ooiftre of the same flowers-one of I
the most tasteful costumes we have seen for a B
long while. tl
The three cousins, Misses B-d, (what glorious
memories this name kindles in the breast of war
worn soldier ! spreading like a meteor from rank
to rank, at Shiloh and on the retreat from Cor- e
Inth, and making Charleston lmpregsmu e aesise b
i the most formidable armada the world has ever i"
seen; a name like that of Sir Launoelot dn Lao, the b
· ost chivalrous of the Knights of the Round J
Ti able, Miss D- te, (s pet name,) the daughter, e
a paragon in form and mien, and Mis H--a, the tI
niece, a blonde beauty, both attired in white t1
tarltan, symbolical of their youth, beauty and 0
purity, and Miss G-l, oIn pink silk over jpe of C
pink tarletan, pink roses in the hair, and pink satin o
slippers. 0
Mrs. H- 11, sister of the latter, wore a rich h
white silk robe en train, white slippers, and head a
dress of roses.
SMrs. E-t M- r, a young bride, wore a fine a
white moire jope, corsage of same, bertha of
tulle, trimmed with foUage, follage in the hair, ii
and a parure of diamonds. e
Miss M-a I--x, of Bourbon street. A
chatain displayed her elegant and lithe form in a d
toilette Pompadour of white tarletan, dotted with
blue, ,retelles of blue silk, trimmed with lane and
catching the skirt at the sides, coiffure of rotes.
Miss C--e S--a wore a grey ohinbe dress,
;with roses in the hair.
Mamame A- e C---e. a very "handsome e
brunette, was much admired in a blue silk, long
peplum of white lace, and brilliant set of diamonds.
Miss D- a I e-e, wee never more handsome, t
Pier dark eyes wickedly inviting flirtation. This r
sprightly young lady of Hospital street, had sim
ply but tastefully selected a white tarletan drw, I
draped with white satin and clusters of golden
balls, coiffure of sprays of lowers and golden c
balls, and white satin shoes.
Mrs. N- e D--1, a blooming young bride,
wore her bridal dress. t
Miss G --, wore a white moire and diadem of I
roses, while her sister-another young bride
I me. D- r, was notioeahle for her graceful
emotions. She wore a pink silk covered with a
tuile. I
Mme. I:--d M--y, of Esplanade street,
whose presence is ever remarkable for the rich
news of her toilets, her grace and amiability, was
on this night splendidly attired in a pink silk
under-dress, an over dress of fine white tulle,
draped with garlands of pink roses, a coiffure of i
roses similar to those of the garlands, and a. gor
geous, complete parure of diamonds.
We can only slightly remember the display
made by the following ladles: Mir E-a [----le, i
a brunette and a beauty-white silk dress corsage I
of tulle, deoolle:te, a cuquettish band of tutle
caressing the milk-white neck. Her sister, Miss
J- e, attired similarly; hair arranged with roses.
The youthful black eyed beauty T-e Y---s,
white tarletan sod Scotch plaid scarf-an admit.
able contrast ; myosotis in the hair. Miss Z--e, a
handsome blonde, was very prettily dressed and I
wore wild flowers of the fields in her hair. The two 1
petite brunette beauties, ---ys, Miss C-e,
with a short white muslin dress and Sootch plaid
belt; braid hair, entwined with fl-urs des champs
and forming a diadem at the front; hair falling at
the back and Miss R-a, her sister, with straw
colored alpacca, trimmed with cherry-colored i
velvet; garland of red marsh lilles.
Mrs. A- t V---e--A peach colored moire an
Stique, very rich. Bertha of paint d'Alencon,
grafeas of pearls, long diamond earrings; head I
dress consisting of three gold passes, or bands, I
attached with diamond agrale. This toilet was I
ulperb as the lady herself.
Miss M--n, of Planche street-White alpaca,
trimmed with white satin, guimpe of tunlle over a
Srange dCoollet, and a magnifieent necklace and
.rnre of pearls. Cotiffure of olusters of jasmine.
Miss B-r, a bright sad lovely girl of scarce
idxteen summers, was deoldedly one of the most
beantitol and lively ladies of the assemblage.
Her attire of whbte and cherry--Innocence and
ardent love-exquisitely comported with her soft,
subdued complexion and sparkling eyes. A de
lightfully cut Crobe cotie of white tarletan, with
designs in piping, or biais, of oherry colored
atin, forming a false tunlo; passes of scarlet vel
vet in the hair.
Mss Dl-d, of St. Martin, we believe, wore a
white dress trimmed with blue satin; coiffure of
blue and white flowers.
To sum up this year's production of the Mistiek
Krewe, it can be said that it was inferior In noth
Ing to what it has hitherto given to ito friends, and
superior to some of its former representations.
That the adair was at the Opera Honse, oinstead of
the Varieties, was a matter of congratalation to
all parties, because the scoommodations were not
only much larger, but much more oonvenient
The attendance was of course larger than ever
before, for there wore more seats to be filled.
Vale, then to the Mistick Krewe for another
Syear, when they shall again appearto show to
the people of New Orleans what a olub ean do
when it attempte to cater to the pleasure of its
friends. Long may the Krewe wave, nd may
ye be on hand every year to see it wave.
'uE PIrHo Wa.--In our advertistaing columns
w: ill be found the first lucid statements we have
seen in regard to the question, which for some
reason has been enveloped in unoertainty, what
piano was deolded at the Pars Exposition to be
the best in the world. Mr. Blackmar's card shows
from the oEioli reports, 1st, that there were four
gold medals given, all of equal value, although
one exhibitor (whose name was seoond on the
list,) clalms that his medal was the first one.
2d. That the cros of the Legon of Honor was
awarded to the Chlokerlng piano aoae, to testify
that it is superlor to all others. 3. That not only
the members of the Jury on pianos considered the
above facts a fully established, but the met emd
psent pianists and eemposere enthusfesteislly con
gratulated the Meera. ChOlkering on their well
mrited accass in reeviring from the very highet
authority in the world the recognition ofthe de
cided mprioety of tsir piese to all other.
Oaee Bsow Coer .-We dtrect the attetmo
ef our lady readers this morng to the auonace
-ut of Moers. Breilman & Co., relsativet their
perior fhcllls for d of al goods below
ket priace. The lpf of ars-b
tslligncea to the fair sex wll, we are stianUd,
t only be meaete wi pleasure, bet also re
d as the intrutat which adds a new Iaeen
towards the may attraetce that their bome
lar allgo possessed i pliat eof eemy t ts
Loisisana Lottery Company vi. Alabama t
mutual Aid Asmiation, Dave C. oP
Johnston, et als. Lt
.._ ad
No. 243-Loulsiana State Lottery Company vs. j
Alabama Mutual Aid Amocistiec, Dave C. John .
seon et ala.
On acoount of an order of injunction ssuned by co
the 81xth District Court for the parish of Orleans, sl
which is contrary to the orders this court before as
which the matter is pending, a brief history of the to
facts of this case becomes naeessr. the
The petition of the plaintiff i this case, In
addressed to this court on the 2d of January, 18 ~, ve
respectfully represents lan substance that by virtue t
of ano act of the Legilature of August 17th 1868, on
etitled "an set to Inorease the revenues of the the
State, to authorise the incorporation and estab. stc
lishment of the Louistana 8tate Lottery Company, lin
and to repeal oertla sets now In force," and hay. Th
l complied with all the necessar p uisites, ca
t has been and is now an incorporated boy ear. v
ing the above name, and is granted for and during ag
the space of twenty-five years to begin from the tr
let of January, 1869, the sole and exclusie privi- so
lege of establihing a lottery or series of lotteries, tbh
and seling and dispoeing of lottery tickets, etc. de
Said act further provides a penalty of not more tio
than five nor less than one thousan4 dollars for stu
My person or persoes who shall, after the 1st of tin
January, 18869, lnfringe upon or violate the sole I
uad eoludve rights of the above corporation by fet
selling or offering to sell any lottery tokets, eto, th
except those of the above corporation. tie
The petition further apm thet 0r
hams ieuls Aid Aoiate, ehmrtuered by the re
laws of Alabama and domilcllted in that tate, in
but represented In this State by uone Dave C. an
Johstoo,as prlncipal agent, and other persons as th
sub-agents, has In violatios of the above-named on
aot, and by a direct and Illegal Infriagement upon the
the rights of plantf, sold lottery tickets other en
than those of petitioner In this case, and will pro- col
ceed to sell, unless restrained by a writ of injuac. le
tion. That petition having ben duly sworn to by
Cha. T. Howard, president of the above-named co
oorperatlon, and a proper bond given, this court the
on that very day issued a writ of lnjunotion pro- to
hibitlag said Dave C. Johnston and his subagents t
from selling or offering to sell lottery tickets of
any kind except those of petitioner. r
On the 7th day of January, 1869, plaintiff filed fe
another petition, which this court considers to be tit
an original petition, from the fact that this court Bt
required a new bond, and granted a new order of seo
injunction. That petition may e considered as pa
an Isoldental one, because its fate depends upon
that of the original one. if the or one be tic
dismissed, the second one will be dismissed; if it
the first one hold good, the second one must hold th
good, too. or
That second petition states In substance that al
the plaintiff is alraid that the defendant's agents al
and sub agents without a shadow of right under ,s
the act of August 17th, 1868, or under any pre* e
viou existing laws (for they were all repealed by th
this law), would apply to another district court de
for the parish of Orleans by sult for legal process, b
In order to vex, annoy, harass, injure your pelt- w
tioner and stop the legitimate business of pla n
tif and temporarily, at least, deprive him of the oa
rights acquired under and given him exclusively th
by this act; and that In order to protect his just wi
rights a further order of injunction became abo $2
lotely necessary. Another bond having been ,
given and the petition being duly sworn to, this N
court issued another writ of Injunction preventing o
and forbidding the defendant, his agents and sub- to
agents from bringing any nit, for the purpose of 14
obtalinng any process by which the rights of a
the plaintif in this case might be in anay th
way or in the slightest degree impaired, th
destroyed or suspended, before any other di
district court for the parish of Orleans. It was
order that this court had a right to isse, did lssue, de
and shall again Issue, If the facts of the case war- to
rant such an order, for the protection of any part
that will trust his rights to this court; for, thongh
that writ of injunction be and is incidental to the
main one, yet, In the scope of Its action, it was an
original one, In tbis, that it prevented the defend
ants, agalnst whom It was Issued, from doing a of
thi that he was not prevented from doinl In the
mind of say one, if the articles of the (ode of m
Prctleo, relative to injunotions, mean anything, g
or have any force of law; that this oonort had an
unquestionable right to issue that order of in-ono
lion, whether it was legally or illegally issue., is a
question which this eourt alone, in its original
jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court, in its appel
late jurisdiction, have a right to determine.
No other district court for the prish of Orleans P
can, with any dignity to Itself, or with any respect Cl
to the court which has Irssed that order, decide
such a question. unless it tramples under foot the
sacred and clemetary principles of law and stir
up the arbitrary will of Its judge agaiJnsthe settled re
doctrines of the law and the unquestionable re
spect due to judicial orders, for, as well said by a
I French author-even if applicable to this court, to
the opinion of another Judge, " d'un magistrau ig
norant o'est Is role qu'o5 mlue"-(of an ignorant 5
judge 'tie to the insignia of oice that we bow. Cl
A third petition, bearing date January 25th, t
1869, was iled by plaintiff in this case, alleging f
that notwithstanding the two orders already issued
by this court, he was apprebenmve and afraid that
the attorney general, in the name of the State of
Louisiana, would proceed to brinag suit and take
out legal process from another court to annoy, I
harasn and tJure plaintiff in his business and sus
pend his rights under the act of 17th August, 1A- ,
by the unavoidable delays of the law, though the
Splasintiff, In bthis case, had complied with all and
singolar the requirements of the charter Inoor
Sporsting it under the name and style of the Loutsi- tl
aa Btate Lottery Company, and prayed this
court by such order as it deemed proper to pro
tect it from al further injury.
That petition being duly sworn to and a new
bond given, the court isned another order of
injuncton prohibiting the attorney general or
Sanybody elte, In behalf or in thebs name of the
e State of Louisioana,. from briing beftore any other
a court of thbe purish any sult to obainegal proceas
by which thi plaintio's right might In the silght
est degree be nlojured, except before thisb court,
d and empowered and ordered the plantiff in thise
, casue, apon the legal preumption (omndapreum. l
. ur recta re acia, that an nat of the Legislatore,
duly authenticated, must be presumed to be con.
stitutional and to have Its full efeot antil declared
I void or unconotitutional by a competent trtbunal,)
.te act as specified and prayed for in hts orilrtnal
and supplemental or Inciadental petitioons in ing
lottery tickets, any order of any district court for a
the parish of Orleans to the contrary notwith
f standing. a
And on the 30th day of January, 1869, on motion
of oouonel for plaintff and upon aoggesting to the
k court thabt the defendsdant, D. 0. Johbsmton had oh
h tlaed an order of injanction from the Bixth Dts
I trict Court, and thereby violated the order of this
ooort, sad in further protection of the rights of
tplinti~, the court ordered the sheriff of this par
Is Mto seeth the plaintiff in this case be not dis
0 turbed or molested in any of his rights under this
t act, even if there should be an order of another
court to that effect. On the 5th January, Isti, the
oounsel for defendants in this cuase appeared before
r thi ourt and toos a rule to quash the injunction
issued on the 2d of January, under Art. 307 of the
, Ccde of Prsatice, by giving bond. This the oqurt
refused to do, for the obvious reuasons that for the
o pnrposes of that role the act must be presumed
o constitutional, and as uch it oonceded the fiact
Sth thtthe plainUtfhad the sole and excldusive right
of selling lottery ticsets. Now, sparing that
riht for the pusposee of that rule, uas very well
said by the SuPopreme Court in the ase of Knobe
vs. Ternot, 14 A. BR., they were entitled to the
i continued and uninterrupted (not evsen for the
re 100th part of a second) eujoyment of that right,
e and the deprivng the plaintiff of that right for the
t smalleset period of time imagineble would work an 1
irreparable injoury-that is an inojory which no
money could compenrsate.
On the 12th and on the 30th of January, 1869,
r the connsel for defendaots took two rules, both
containing the same grounds, to quash the frst
two injunctions isued in thi cae on the Sd and
he 7th of Jan~ury, 89. upon fthyollowing roundar
e. and that is the matter whloh ths counrt s called
u upon to decide:
That sid Injuntion here issued on account of a
right claimed by plaintif, under and by virtue of
ly an et of tbe General Assembly of the State, bear
e lg date August 17,1868, entitled "An act to in
alt crese the revenuesof the Stats, and to authorize
the incorporation and establishment of the Lo.us
*an State Lottery Company, and to repeal eertain
acts now in foroe," wbih said act is unconstitu
s tioal. for the following resos: That the title of
Sld sect is fale; that it dose not expressm its ob
jeot, s required by article 114 of the Constit
tion of the 8tate of Lodsian; that said title is
o ot coemisteat with the body of said act; that
id act is destrctive of equality nd uniformity
so- of tailosa throughout the State; that it exempts
er from taxation property not actually used
w for school, church and charitable purposes; that
hit expempts* ou ta Lotter Co anpy
from the paymmeu of the r-o rp a t, u eon ,
d, oontrary to Am IU S of m oidaataon; that said
,en of t HeeSmof cpeatesw of aid
Asemr y nd th the prrseedie g o
ite toand M th Ue e oft e Al p tae id Mt
concerning said act, wre eInegular end wooum*
tootosal; that satd act is ia vlatdoo of the Coa- be
stitution of the United States in this, that it ti
attempts to regulate commerce among the several in
8tats by retrietag and regulatig the sale of is
lottery tIokts, by said act recognised as artols all
of commeree, and confining the de thereof to as
special chanels; that sald sot is generally on- thi
trary to the provisions of the Constitutioa of the au
United States sad of this State; that said act, if no
allowed to have Abot. create a pernicious sad
dangerous monopoly, sad it contra bonos mores. do
That said writ of injeoeton aed been ed
issued unadvisedly and without authority of law. Jet
It is necesaryto proceed a little further i the v
judioal history of this ease before this court to lei
uederstand the conaflit of orders existing between
this court and the 81xthtistrlct Oourt for the par- sa
ish of Orlesans. On the 12th of January, 1869, the to
counsel for defendants also filed an exception to thu
said sit, averring the meonsttatonlity of that Cc
act, in the sme words sad figures that their ratule be
to quash m written. They also Aled an answer on LI
the 11th January to the merits of the cae, bring- up
ing up again to the souaderstios of this eourt the s
very same grounds of unoonstittionality,urged tinhi
their rule to quash and is their exception; the i
only difference, if it can be called a diference, is ly
that in their answer they alleged that the capital If
stock required to be subscribed before commeno- IA
ing operations is not yet suabscribed and paid in. th
They deny the corporate entity of plaintiff, be
cause said act is alleged unonstittional, sad an
very properly reserve their right to claim dam a
ages," if this court decide the sot of the Legisla- q
trte unconstitutional and void. The obvious rer ra
son of this reservation of their claim in damages is th
that in order to claim damages the sot most be up
declared unconstitutional; if declared Oonstitu- or
tional they have no elaim whatever, not even the
shadow of a claim, in damages against the plain- ei
tli in this nee. de
Now those identical pleas, proceedings and de- lei
fenses of the defendant before this court and in no
this case are made the subjeot matter of his pe- th
from that court, otively prohibiting the plaintiff ve
in this court from exerising its rights, privlees an
and immunities as a corporation, notthtanding In
the fact that the plaintiff In this court, long previ
oau to the issuance of that writ of injuncaton by th
the Sixth District Court, had a positive and per- ar
emptory order 'of this court to exercise and It
continue to exercise its corporate righte, privi. an
leges and immunities as granted in the act of Au- ts
gust 17, l168, inoorporating it, any orders of any hi
court to the contrary notwithstanding, but until
the further order of this court. So far for the his- pr
tory of this ease as it appears from the records of wi
the Fifth and Sxlath District Courts. tic
The court will now prnoceed to examine the os
grounds of unoonstitutionality urged by the rde
fendants against the act of 17th August, 1869. en- su
titled " an act to increase the revenues of the
State, and to authorize the Incorporation and
establishment of the Loulsiana State Lottery Com- w
pany, and to repeal certain laws now in force," of
The defendant avers that said act is unoonstito- oc
tional, because it is false in ,title is this: that is
it is entitled "an act to ln3rease the revenues of to
the State," whereas, on the contrary, far from in- tic
creasing the revenues of the State, it does efectu- p.
ally dminish them. The ruling of the court, ex- cc
cluding any evidence on that point, does of it- th
self do away with that objection, for there is no jo
evidence, under that ruling that the revenues of A
the Stste are ffectually diminished. But as the evi- w
dence is annexed to the bill of exceptions taken
by the defendants' counsel, tbe court might as 51
well examine it and decide thereon. An extract (1
from the books of the anditor lot the State show re
conclusively the fact that the whole revenues of pi
the State derived from lottery dealers in 1866 as
were $36,636 28; in 1867, $34,s93 36; In 1868, at
$28,77i 01, and in 1869, under the act in question as
as it now stands, the annual revenues shall be
$4o,000, showing, therefore, an Inerease of $3,363 72 m
over the most prosperous year of revenues from ni
lottery dealers. Evidently the Legislature In the
legitimate exeroise of its legislative functions had
a right to conclude (seeing that the revenues of o4
the State from lotteries were yearly diminishing) In
that it would be better to determine positively and vi
definitely the revenues at a sum exceeding any
previous revenue from that source of industry or iC
dealing, by granting certain rights and privileges 04
to the Louisiana State Lottery Company. 4
But it may be contended by the counsels for de- ri
feodants that the words "to Inorease the revenues u
of the State " must mean all the revenues of the B
State as a whole. Such a construction of the title B
of that statute might fall, for ton the interpretation 0
of the title of a statute all the words of the title o
must be taken and considered separately and to
gether, just as in the interpretation of the body
of a statute. so that no sentence or word shall
be superfluous void or lsignifoant. (See I A. R.
162,5 A. R. 61;, 11 A. B. 122.) Now the acot is 1
entitled " an act to increase the revenues of the
8tate, and to authorize the incorporation and es
talishbment of the Louisiana State Lottery Com- t
pany." That last sentence evidently leads the
court to the conclusion that the words in that a
title, "to increase the revenues of the State"
limit the interpretation as effectusily as if the a
title were reed, "an act to increase the
revenues of the State In lottery matter." F
Again, It is contended that the title is untrue T
and defective in this: that it only authorizes the t
incorporation and establishment of the Louisiana
Btate Lottery Company, whereas the bdy of c
said act does effectually incorporate and establish P
the said company. This, In the opinlon of the *
court, is a play upon the grammatical construo
tion of words. In the interpretation of the title of a
the law, the words of the title are not to be b
strictly and technically interpreted; if it state r
the object according to the understanding of re. t
sohable men, It satisfies the Constitution. (See 6 a
A. R., 605 ; 9 A. R., 329; 11 A. R., 145. 671. 722;
13 A. It., 301.) (See, also, the authorities re- v
ferred to by the court In the preceding ground, t
and the principles therein laid down for the in t
d terpretation of the statute.) lut admitting, for
the sake of argument, that the title does not cover a
the effectual Incorporation and establishment of
the Lootlsana State Lottery Company, the ooort u
would answer that it is net neoessary that it
should, for the incorporation and establishment of r
a company authorized to be tncorporated and t
established Is an Inoident whloh (if the deoasio of t
the b. C. in the 11 A. R., p. 722, 145, 671, and 13
e A. R., p. 301, and others above referred to by the
Scourt, be correct,) need not be expresed in Its
But the court contends that the title does
effectualiy cover the faot of oIncorporation and
establishment of that company. Just uas if the I
title of the aot were to read: An act to increase
the revenues of the Butate and authorize the In
corporation of, and to establishthe Loa ia
Otate Lottery Compansy," for If the Legislature
d not bed that twId their mind, and the title
did not cover it, the word "establismeut' found I
In the title would be superfluanus and have no
urmeaning, fer the words "to authorie the in
Scorporation of" would have met sall the require
ments of the Constitution placed upon that title
Sby the defendasut' coounsels, and the fact of the
Sestablishment would have been a matter of doing
beyond the power of the Legislature, dependent
simply upon the will of the oorporaturs to estab I
liah themselves under that authorization of In
corporation or not. The word " establUshment" I
was evidently put by the Legislature to cover I
the faIct of the existence of that body as a corpora
But counsels for defendants further urge that I
mid act is unconrsttutloial because the title i not
e conttet with the body of said act. Tie court 1
S would see no apparent inoonsistency uas allege4 by
the defendant, if in their argument they had not
rt explained to the court that by the word " title"
in their sentence, they meant the preamble or
reasons accompanying that statute, and whloh the
t egislature signed for is peslge. That incon- I
SIsttenoy, if really existing. (and it is not necessary
t for the court to decide whetherlt des or does not I
I exist r can very well be gotover nuder the settled
rulies of interpretation of statutes which, as laid
S down by our Supreme Court in the decionsa
e already referred to by the court, require that if I
Sthe literal text of a statute lead to an absurdity,
Sthe court must, if It be possible, give It that lanter
n pretation which will do away with the absurdity
and yet maintain the idea and intention of the
Legislature. Under that rule the court could not
Shold that the Legislature meant to sanction that
th which they gave reasons for not sanctionin. But
e ounsels for defendants have tfurther objectioes
still to urge. They aver that the title of the act is
defective in this, that it should mention the titles
of the special acts then in force and which are
repealed by that act, though the titles ofthoe
repealed acts, then in force, are given in the body
of o the statute. They fuorther urge that the title is
rdefective in this: tha it contains nothing of the
in- penalty inficted by the section three of that act
as for a violation of its clauses.
Cl- Tle court will oonldder these two objections
tin together, beeause the same anthoritieus apply to
n- them. and for the purpese of deiding tbes
of objections the court wants no better authority
ib than the one relied upon by the defendant's coun
t sel mahking these objections.
is In the 11 &a. , p 7J2, the 8. C. ays : "The
at doctrine of all American court is that a legisla
Ity tive sot will not be declared void or auoonstito
pei tioal less Its tacompatlbltlty with, or vitolatleee
ed of the paremonat law he cler beyed a nroeu
hat ble doubt.' The court contlines the quotation:
my "The design of a title of a law is merely to
s, indicat e the eral subject of the law, and ot t
id furnish a deted exposltio of allu pr ;"
al ifthe Intmr weore the s e t would id uatothe
ld absuard oonelusion tht the title aodid be u long
o atheasot.
e What good mese weald Intodete i what the
et,Constituian exats, namely,!a b some geneal
gt- proviionat the head of the law, te lateatlom
both Leglslaeas and iteon should be Axed epon the
the main esubjeet matter to wheh "all thi detals stall
in the body et the sttatte aee suzllsry.' there et
is na debt La the miaa of this caoro t ae the pee g
alty (dIoted by the seotion 3 of that sot, as well o
as the title of the law repealed by that aet, are in vil
tbhe words of the abeve deisio of the. C., sa Us
aeuxliry in the body of the statute which need slo
not be expressed In the title. de
The eeers now leaves the title of the act, md t
doubtt whether the inteligence of the most eera- T
ed counsel of the land could find any further obh- fet
jectios to the title. As to the court, ft has in site
vein searched the perhaps barre fields of Is own tier
legal attainments for further objections. bar
The next ground is that art, ec. 5,ee. 1,exempts on
aid corportioe from the payment of any other T
tax but the one of $40,000. The Lenlstare hae
that right, under a late decisioa of the spreme moc
Court, not yet reported, but a copy of which has T
been reed to thi court (tt of Mew Ortes, O. the
Laesy and BR Reihimae). The constroetion placed rea
upon that article of our Coostitution by the So- of I
preme Court. Is that the legislater is not pro- the
hibited, by the tems of the article, from exempt- thei
lug other property from taxation, save that actual- t
ly used for sh col, church or charitable purposes. coo
If not prohibited, it has the right to exempt the of I
Louisiana State Lottery Company from say fer- mo
ther taxation. n
Bat it is said that that set exempts the Lolhd- and
uan BStIs Lottery Company from the payment of Iis
a pro rata tax on inoome. The article 118 In is a
question ays "all tax on Income shall be pro ag
rata on the mount of income or busnese done;
the General Assembly may levy an Income tax reel
upon all persons pursuing any occupation, trade of
or calling." poi
There i nothing to show that the Genesal As- Ot
sembly has levied that tax; that article ie evi- stri
dently permislsive and not obligatory. The Legle- ant
latar may or may not, and until It does there is
no aneoselty for deoldinlthat question. But, on m
the spposition that It does levy that tax, or that def
vent the Legislature from exempting the Loosei- el
sue state Lottery Company from paying that sec
Income tax. eo
The only prohibition that the oourt can Snd in his
that article is that the Legislature cannot tax ali
arbtrarily one inoome more than the other. The ma
tax has to be levied generally upon all Isoemes i. e
and then each person pays that proportion of the me
tax according to the amount of business done by ate
him. tnt
The fact that the Legislature exempts certain hat
property or persons from the payment of taxes do
would not contravene that article of the Counstite- co
tion, which says: "Taxation shall be equal and cal
uniform." I
But on the supposition that the court should a0
sustain the objeotion of defendant's coepsel, that
peat aloes of the law waould be anoonshtntlonsl,
it not being a material part of the law; a part
without which the aot should cease to have any by
effect; the other parts of the law would remain
constitutional. The next point to be oonsldered nel
is that that act was not passed in the manner and
form provided for by the articles of the Constitu. ha
tion of 1868, sad required by those articles. The Ity
pages of the journal of the House referred to the
court by counsel, are pages 95, 96 and 114, but go
the oourt by looking at page 90 of that same sat
journal finds that on Saturday, the 1set day of de
August, Mr. Faulkner called up House hill No. 66, wi
which I the act in question. Ht
Mr. Carr of Orlesans moved that the bill be con. lIn
sidered engrossed aend placed on its third reading. a I
(The counsel for defendants do not question the hit
regularity and constitutionality of that bill at any cll
previous passage; therefore its passage on first th
sand second readings is admitted to have been coon in
stitutionally correct. It is only the third reading '*
and final passage of the bill which is questioned.) ini
Mr. Antoine of Orleans moved that the bill be ca
made the special order of the day for Tuesday ha
Motion laid on the table. qn
On motion of Mr. Car of Orleans, the bill was th
considered engrossed and placed on Its third read- thi
Ing. That follows forcibly, for that was his pre- L(
vious motion. Yoe 33, nays 28. Total 61. oo
Now, what the other pages 96 and 96 of the inl
journal have to do with the passage of the bill this c
t court cannot see, for the bill, as appears by page th
90 of the journal, had already passed Its thlr4
reading, and therefore could not properly come be
up again, no motion appearing in the journal of of
the HBose to reconsider the vote then taken. fe*
But the court will examine, out of respect to so
counsel, the pages 95, 96 and 114 of the journal th
of the House. th
Mr. Carr moved to take up House bill No.6. pc
Mr. Brewster, of Ouachita. moved to lay on at
the table the motion to suspend the rules. br
Yeas and nays called. Yeas 11: nays 49. To- m'
tal 60.
Several amendments offered. et
Mr. Carr moved to lay the amendments on the ti
table. Yeas 48; nays 11. Total 69.
Mr. Carr called for the previous question. Yeas th
and nays called and ordered on the adoption of of
the amendment offered by Mr. Burrell, resulting
as follows: Yeas 49; nays 1. Total 49.
No quorum voting. Call of the House ordered.
Fifty-three members answered to their names.
The chair decided that the question recurred on ,c
the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Carrappealed from the decision of the cI
chbalr. The chair was not sustained. AU that
proceeding thus far shows that the members In
wanted no addition to the bill. t
But be that proceednlg llegal,though the court b
shows It was not, for to decree it Illegal it should w
s be shown aflrmatively that there was not a quo- It
rum present, voting, when the vote was taken on e
the motion to sustain the chair; but the journal al
I shows quite the contrary, for, on the calf of the
House made previously to putting the motion hi
whether the bstr shoould be sustained, 53 mem- a!
bern habed answered to their names. The court has, m
therefore, no right to presume, with this written va
r oficil declaration in the journal, that some of the ft
r members had withdrawn, and that there was no 1
If qoorunm present when the vote was taken on the b
I motion to entain the chair.
It But, on the eupposition that there was no quo.
F rum during all these proceedags, does It followr
d that no regular aotion could ever afterwards be
f taken on the bill? Eidently,no! r
3 And the journal goes on: Mr. Our moved that
Sthe bill be now oonsidered engrossed and plased
a on Its third reading and final pesage, and oalled
for the previos qutiton. CaOuried. Yeas 4,
n nays3;total 57.
d e bill was ordered to be sent to the Senate
Sfor concurrence.
e There is nothlng unooastitutioesl in th pi
Sa of tshe biU on ie third readling, In the optinion
a othis court. The metropolitan police board bill *
e to whom the counsels for defendaot referred In
a this oee presented an entirely different question
I from the one now raised; it presonted this oes- u
Stion which does not arise in this case: How many 7
- votes does it take to prevent the reading, discuo
- alon a·nd plsrage of a bill on the samen day; and C
e since that discussoln is referred to, will take this C
e to y ; that is the court is satisfied that if that tl
g samne question were to come up again it would de- t
it olde quite differently, for this court feels no e a
Sloctance ln acknowledging an error of judgment, b
- and the court feels relieved of its error is know- c
Slug that in a ,se before the Seventh District b
r Court, in wbib that very same question oeme up
- the judge of thts court very properly refaed to
be suided by the decision of this oourt an the me
t tropolmtan poli.e bill, and very correctly ruted
th ththe four flihs of the House meant the four
rt fifthe of thle members present or the fourfifths of
t The next point urged, Is that said act violates U
the Conetitutlon ,f the United States in thlt: that
r it attempts to regulate commerce among the ser
e eral States of the United Butee in confning the
a- ale of mid lottery tickets recognized by said act
Sa articles of commerce to certain special chan- I
Snels. r
d 'Ihe court cannot see the application of that
i article of the Constitution of the United States to
as the facts of tts case. If the court noderstand that
if articlt, it is, fur instance, that tbi State has no
, right to prohibit the importation of goods, to levy
r-an impoet upon them, to tax them, to pase any c
y law on the subjeot of commerce derogatory of
a that article; for Instance, to seize, eoniscate,
o sell or destroy the goods imported, to try to puan.
t ish the importers or commieson mrbants who
t sell them, either by fine or ImprIsonment, or In
s any other maoner, scd such like cues; bst the
is Constitution of the United Staltes or the laws of
s Congres nowhere speak of lotterleo or lottery
e tlckets as article of commee, or olim the right
to eexercbseexclnluve jurisditionor non.concurrent
ly jaredlotion with the BSes; on the oontrary, it I
ioI ves it entirely aunder the exclsive control of
he the Indivldual States, by aying, ain its interal n
i revenue law, for Istance, that nothing In the ar.
tele is tto be construd so uas to authorise lot- I
a terles: and If that aerticle of the Costitution of
to the UniUted tate did apply, the oonrt would then
s hold, according to the more modern deieston
ity on that point, that the State may legislate in mat- I
. ten regulating commerce, tn matters ot leglis -
lated upon by Congress. (6 Wallos Beport.
he page 35, Crandall vs. Nevada.
- If the btate allows it, then the United States
n nets itsresene bom It as a lawfut oeoaptioe,
as but nething morne; it msttir entirely nder the
- control of tim State,ana upon whlch i ca seta
n: please. Thls issotro, thatnot longao theL
sto eis nd daling in @ lotr tiektIs wee a lm
p ure ryo bn u tha laws; meje
· t ,t c n~t.to fo the Criminsi Courthel
Severy violaMion of tha set. JAd to qas. te
constttitona ttoof thse mote of our L .gsleara
m aking the d~an In lottery tieket. a elem., a
bei bdel elation of the article of the Coastitu
o of the Uneed Staes reulatin commerce among
the State, would havs bees an eaterprsse as
striklogly surprsldg to a strala ef argueet in
that line. Therefore if the State has the gater
right to ontiredy 4rone aly psaldla taesae
or, iott eyticesw n its boudofsH, wiout
vielating that article of the Costitatlon of the
Undted ate, it ,- a f rtoriori the lesser right of
allowl nto ssh persea as it phLe5.. and eam
der sob restritlons, privileges sad eoaditions in
itmaypl pe to mpose.
The N athorlaes arred to by ouseet Tor de- p
fendants oa this point are good law, and oris- R
site, as far as u they go; but they have no appica- T
tion, in the opision of the oourt, to the case t a
bar, for the resoms already assigned by the coart v
I on the merits of that point.
The next point is that said t, it permitted to co,
have eebot, oreate a pernaclons and danagerous
monopoly, and is contra bonos more. I
There is no doubt in the mind of the court. as al
the court has jest demoestrated by the preceding t
resesaing, that as far as the selling ad disposing a
of lottery are concerned, the Legislature having r
the right to prevent that sale in Lfob, and has
therefore te lesser right, in ts wisdom, to modify the
that right, to grant It under such oonditioh as the bill
court thinks best, and to such individuals, or ets
of individuals as it may think proper, creating a mi
monopoly, it Is treo-butthen the legislatore are of
i such a case, ecountable to none but to G A No
and their consonlece-for the power of the Legis- g
lature is upreme; it can do everytianl which it
is not premlsy or plidly prohiblted from do
in by rtu of the Constitutlio of the UDnited
Stes and thbe CoastlteIos of this ~t te, not eveS
restricted in its legitimate funotions by the laws 6
of morality. There are but two bounds to its i
power. First, the Constitution of the United
Btate. Second, that of the State. When net re
stricted by these two, it is an omnipotent as the Eil
autocrat of Russia. (ee page s2.)
SThe next point is that that st is scontr bosos wa
ma ores. That point would aot avail ooouesl for
I defendants, for if the ooort could be led to decide
sell lottery tickets. But this coont cannot decide
t such a thing. As an individual, the judge of this i
court has hm own deas of moralty. Ae a judge,
a hi ode of moral iso the law. What e law
Sallows the court will jadiollly decree to be legally
moral, though it may not be legally moral in se,
i. e., in the abtraot. There thedyof the judge
a must end. The law i hls morality ; and if e the
r attempts to go beyond the law, he can but substi- I
tinte his ow o Mes of morality, or these that he le
a has lot from some philosophical thinkers, aed thes
s doctrine of the higher law whch the judge of this U*
i* court was once unfortunate enough to hear advo
d cated by an eminent member of the bar. be
Bo true, correct and legal is the opinion of this ml
d court on the question of exclusive rght conferrsd
t by the set of the 17th of August, 1688, on the o0
I plainti in this ase, that the learned judge of the
S ixth District Court concurs a It, as it can be seen
y by the following extract taken from a charge m
a delivered by himto to the jury I the ease of Mart cl
a net vs. City Railroad, pending before his court.
d The last point is, that said writs of Injunction
have been sued unadvisedly and without autho
Sity of law.
e The court having decided the aot of 17th An- A
t gust, 1868, constitutional, it will strike the common
e sense of everybody, that there is no neceaity of Is
t deciding those two other writs of injunctona,
which wrmee merely incidental to the main srot.
However, the point is made, and should be looked
. Into. The court understands an injunction to be
a mandate obtained from a competent ooart, pro
e hibitlng one from Impatring a right which he
y claims. If such be the oae, there is no doubt
it that, upon the allegations of a certaon right veted Te
in a party, the court must protect him, and pre- Tt
g venany impairing of that right, ntil a final hear
) ing. And, if after a final hearing, the court feels
e convinced that the party, alleging to have a right,
Shas it in reality. why the the injuotiona most
stand forever. But that is not the main point; the P
question to be decided is, whether this court has
s the right to issue ts writs of injunction, asit did in t
i. this case, to prevent the other party from bring- 8
g. in suit. There is no doubt in the mind of the
court that it has that right; and, without entering
e Into a discusesion of the merits of the ease, the
is court would refer to several oases establishing
e that fact beyond the posalbility of a doubt.
S The first case is that of Leaumont vs. Viavaat.
e before the Sixth District Court, In which tih judge H
,f of that court issued an order directed to the de- . I
, fenadant in that case prohibiting from bringing a t
suitt before any Stste court against the plaintiff in ol
Sthat case. Another case before the same court is
that of Lee and al. vs. Thiberge, sod a case re- P
ported in 14th Annual, page 5S, wherein defend- r
n ante in an injunction suit were enjoined from N
bringing any suit at law to enforce the paymeut of ri
. mortgage notes.4
The ast of the Legislature of 17th August, lR8, p
entitled " an act," etc., being constitutional for
e the reasons above set forth.
It is therefore ordered that both rules to quash
a the injunction in this case be dismissed at the col.m o
)f of plaintiff in rule. d
- -. --
Prepaurte the Orrend for rLt.atas Cotte. 1I
e. Here is an article from the Vicksburg Times,
an containing matter of especial interest to a large
%e class of our readers:
at Mr. Editor-As the time approaches for this ri
rs Important work, I wish to call the attention of o
those engaged in it to an error which prevatied 0
d where was so much depending on its correction.
It was a sever of time, and was not visible to the
eye, though the results were always felt, bat never 0
1 attributed to the right cause. It wce that prao
tlee of leaving to the center of the otton ridge
n bard ground for the cotton to take root in. Of C
n- all the crope grown cotton requires the deepest
and mellowest soil to root in, having a long top v
,i root, which runs deep into the ground. How per
he fectly absurd to suppose it could penetrate hard d
soil and give more nutrimnent to the stalk and its
breaches and fruit than it would in the well pul. 1
verised sad deeply plowed ground. Cotton bhas but
few lsateral roote, sad draws its suetenance from 'I
,,the depths of the earth rather than the surface, a
be Uad it moust be sided by the Intelligent planter
resohing these sources of supply. Bt to prove a
the folly and absurdity of this pratie so nulver.
rally believted in, and I willt give a few fete.
In 1866 the writer had allowed n immense bank a
of cotton seed to collect at his ginb-house, and not c
having time to spread it on distant par of the
tB fLeld, he had it bauled on a 16 sre oaut elose by, I
which bhad been cultivated bor Alty rer. Some t
* f the beest teams were, putoo this cut sod plowed
in the middle of the row, as deep a tlrrow e poe- I
l slble. Then the seed was thrown In this furrow, I
i and filled In to the top; he then bad tthe radgee
thrown writh this rtted cotton seed in the ;
o center. bl was all done in March. About the
let of April the cotton was planted in the usual
way, with many misgivings amongst the laborers
d as to the results,, and the overseer said that the
S cotton would die out. Whben the top root reaobed
at the cotton seed beneath, the cotton grew offbeau- i
le- ttfully, was the rst to bloom, the first to ature,
Sand the grat to open, and on the frst of 0Sepm
at, her we gathered flfteen hunodred poods of seed
Scotton to the acre, and picked it again 1s t Octo
lotber, when we gathered fifteen hundred pounds I
more to the aore, sand had another picking from it
Sof sowme three or four hundred pounds to the acre
in December, making a yield of near 2 baies.
of Psoaitizr o ioa To ra Aaiv.-A bill for the
reorganisation of the army will be brought in by
G en. Garfleld, from the House miihtary committee,
at ad moved as an amendment, in accordance with I
.the understanding resehed on Friday, to the army
e appropriation bill. I is based in a irge part o
t recoimemdatinons of (eeral Tboumas, ohedeld,
n. Hancock. McDowell and other ofieers who have
recently been examined by Gen. Galbeld'eomn 1
t mittee. It provides for reducing the number of
to fantry regimeunte from 46, the present nuomber,
tat to 30. The men of the regiments broken up are
no to be mustered into the others so ua to give the I
y manxmum streagth to thoe retlioed. The pay,
commisary and quartermaster departments areto
o be consoliated, and the new'branch will be called I
&e the supply department. The ordnance arm of the
Sservice is to be broken up entirely, and all its
ho officials mustered in as ofers of artillery, with a
in chief ofpartllery and a bureea in the war dpert.
the ment. There is to be a redction of about one
of third in each of the staffdepartmente. The Indian
y boureoau b to be transferred to the war deprt
iht ment, and the extra is cad staff officers are to
ant be put on duty lin place of the present civil o ers 1
it among the Indians. Thee are merely the outline.
of of the proposed plan. It looks to a reduction of
l at leras al hundred ln the number of army oocers,
ar. ad It is thought the measure will reduce the ox
lot- pease of the goverdaent folly $10,000,000 pet
of year. Nowew oieerN areto be astsrued isa
Sthe committee think that by death, discharg god
Sresignation, the present force of oietail can in
. es than three years be reduced 0 o the avage
. requirement of the service. The first step toward
the new order of things was takes in ihe Hooe,
on Saturday, whben teon millions redaction was
made at etre en th*e agrogate of the amount
repi* ad by the army il. The ladia breao
She setS deparmet will of cours oppoe
jW~ AoLIA WAIS.-5-3e or is t e bed isa.
the ny the only sewleg mastrn a I rbe nllage,
Sthe Grover & Baker. Warraned hor ye arm.
Qunlter, braider nd emmer gIseo witteheh ma.
ag chine t 1.2 Caral street.
The LIMaes Lt gasers.
1 ----
f SAmnUrAY. Feb. 13, 1R69.
Bernet. a t at on, Liettest Governor Duna
la the ohak.
A full quoream preset.
Pryer by Rev. Mr. Turner, ohplUio.
Reading of the minutes dispensed with.
Mr. Campbell oalled up the special order of the
dey, according to potion of the previous day,
via: The bill relative to the new o01 oharter.
rhe Benate refused to entertain the call tin a
0 cordance with the rules of the senate.
Mr. Lyach. from the doance sommittee, reportei
" favorably opea a bill exempting from taxltion
Sthe New Oreas MethodIst Reposltory.
5 Mr. Pmchback. from the committee on claims.
i reported favorably pon a hill for the rellef of
SPike, Lapoen A Co., with the recommundtlo
7 that it be referred to the inace committee. The
* bill was referred uas recommended.
S A unfavorable report was made by the coin
Smittee on commere opon a bill orseetin toe office
of lumber and timber epetor fee the ity of
SNew Orleans.
s By the internal Improvemeate eommlttee, fa
t vorably upon a bill for the relief of 6. James.
s orroas or anu.r.s.
d By Mr. Campbell-Of a bill for the relief of the
SSBouthwestera Bible Sooiety.
r By Mr. Lynch-Of a bill exemptlng from levee
Stxation certain persons of Lake Providence.
ACCODNGO To rsavious NoTIOs.
' Mr. Todd Introduced a bill inorporating the lot
Sfilling company of the city of Jeferso.
Also for the retef of Lucy 0. Carson, which
was referred to the eommittee m ohlas.
By Mr. Chmell-"A bill for the relief of the
isea Bosrey ReerrPed to We
ad. espolwn of to rt se. W. ay ntaro
l" doced a bill relative to the conveyance of title
t In auccseasone and losolveeles.
e, A bill eoferrfg additional powers to parsh
J udgees. Both bill. were read twice and referred
S to he judiciary committee.
P JOTIm ssoL~tTOwe.
Ie By Mr. Campbell-A resolution to invetigate
te the affairs of the Usited States Bankrupyto Court
ti- In this State, and a resolution prohibitlng the
Slea or disposal of, io any manner, of the water.
' werks by the city authoritles. Both reseoltion
J ie over
o- By Mr. Day-A resolution for the relief of Bo
bert Harris and others. Referred to the cor
Smittee on claimse.
he By Mr. Futcb--A resolution ereating a standing
he committee on immigration.
Me Mr. Pollard was not in favor of immigratIon; he
Sthought there were enough Immlgreate here al
P ready, and to invite more, was to orowd out his
Sclass of people The resolution ise over.
on Mr. Lynch-A resolutlon for the relief of J. E.
o- Trimble, for per diem, ste., as a witness.
By Mr. O'Hara-A resolution for the relief of
SAnugstus Davis ; also for per diem as a witness.
00 Both referred to the committee on contingent ex
of peoes.
A bill relative to the protection of the levees
was taken up, ordered printed, and made the ape
eial order on Thursday.
A bill regulating the terms of the Bapreme
Courts of the State was similarly disposed of.
A bill creating the parish of Tanatpsoa waM
read and made the special order of the day
ht, A bill to expedite the constructlen of the New
.t Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga Railroad Coan
he pay was taken op and finally puassed.
as he bills relative to the city charter were taken
in p, but pendin stion upon the first section the
SSenate adjourned.
Hense of kereseaaatrves.
he Sixty-one members present.
ag The motion to postpone for one week the bill
granting State aid to the New Orleans and Texas
SItailroad Company, which was pending when the
House adjourned on Friday, wee taken up and ear
rled. A motion to reconsder the House refused
ai to table, and finally adopted by a recorded vote
n of42 to23.
t is The committee on educantion here, under a nse
re. pension of the ruls, reported to the House a bill
ad- regulating publio education tn fMtsiana, and
om moved that It be at once fially passed without
Iof reading. This modeet proposition wa subse
quenuy withdrawn when the bill was ordered
ii, printed and deferred until Monday.
for Mr. Wiltz, from the committee on public eduae
. ,.misLsd Seiowiag manrttity report:
The undersigned, a member of the committee
es on public eduooation, respectfully report that he
dissents from the report submitted by the majority
of the committee, and recommends that the pub.
n. lic schoole continue to exist under the present
system, which has already been tested and found
ee, tifactory to all towe directly Interested.
LotIs A. WrILv,
rge Of Orleans.
A memorial from several cititens of Orleans,
his right bank, relative to E. Macarthy, justice peace
of that pariuh, which was referred to committee
ied on address.
acy The petition of Jacob Zoelly, asking compensa
on tion for building a levee in frot of his place in
the St. Charles parish, was referred to committee on
ver sclams.
an- naroars or oowYxires.
Age Claimn-On an set for the relief of A. P. Field,
f bChaney and Belden, favorably by substitute.
)set On n acet for the relief of B. Ewell, favorably,
top with an amendment.
)er- On an aot for the relief of Chinette, of 8t. Lan
ard dry, unfavorably.
I ts Judiciary--On an act to carry into effet the
tul. 132d arttole of the Cotositution, favorably.
but Ways and mease--On act to exempt the
rom Turners from 8tate and mual'pal taxation, favor
e, ably; Isabelde disslenting. Bill ordered engrssed.
tier Bill for the rcllef of T. F. Monroe was nldoA
o ntely postponed.
rer The G eranprltnlg queuset wae ke ll.
The bi1l to aid in the conmrooon of the Misle
ank ipplt and Mexican Gulf Canal, was made speolal
not or oder for Tuesday nst.
the leave of asees to Mr. landers, of Union, for
by, ve days, and Mr. Presoott, of St. Landry, for
me three days, granted.
red Appropriatione--On act for relief of widows
oe- Pope and Chase, favorably. Communittee of the
ow, whole.
gee On Senate bill relative to auctloneers' bonds,
the favorably with an amendrent.
the On bill appropriating $50,000 for reglsitration
mel purposes, favorably with ant amendment making
rre amount $48,000. Commlttee of the whole.
the On bill for relief of (Chartly Hosptisl, favorab'y
hod with smendmnt reducing amoar by *10,000.
an- llme dispoeitioe.
ore, On bill for relief of widow Huot, favorably.
am. Sme dIsposition.
med On bil spproprirtlng 8000 to repair records of
cto- I atte land offce, favorably rwth an amendment
mde making amount $4000. Same diepoeltion.
re By Hleldenhalo. for relief on Conrad Atrader.
By ,nrell of Orleans, to regulate business In
district courts.
By Morsy of Ooachlta, to reorganize the bureau
the of immigration.
r by 1 ren of Bkasier. to Improve Lake ilateneso.
Alsto to prevent New Orleans and Jefferson from
pith levying yce aeL.
rmy roDCO O BILL.
S By Morey, to allow somebody to :dlasberit his
1d, sen. Judciary commlrte.
ave Also an act appropriatilg 50.000 for public
o. printing and publishing. Referred to committee
r of on ways and meaMs.
ber, Also an act to oincorporate the Oasebita 8laek
are Water Navigation ('ompany nsod to lese Rttse
the bonde thereto. Referred to committeeon ternal
pay, improvemeats and ordered printed.
reto ByIsabelle, an act relative to cost and fee
tiled Referred to jadilciary.
ithe An eatto amend article 2294 of tha CIvi Code.
I Its Judiciary.
a An act toamend artlle 2299 of the00vl Cod.
er. Jodiciary.
one- By MoVean of Caddo, an set to icorporate the
dims ILoislan Transfer Company, and provide raflroad
art telegraph communca'on with the Paeidle nt.
eto Ordered Iprinted au reada to railroad comnit
aof A st for thre fl of B.BloomflaM. Appro
rs, priation committee.
x An acst for the reliefof Albert Lastrappe. Set
Per to committee on lrary. ..
An act to pd erbery of witnseses. Judicitar
ad committee.
Sin An aet mhregnl g somebody to all theo rlight
r of t on Lefeerche Navigation Comaani
cad Corpotrats commttee,.
5 As aot eastesgml th pe po jury of St. J
S to lsae bead. Finully doptd. a a
ouat A jras reaoltioe reatire to portralit c
ree Thomas.. PFirnly passed. .mfw
poe te emendment to the metropoite p
" Vereadopted. Sent tothe S ,eat . l Ib o
The bill Lmproving St. Chatsm eb,
referred to the committee of l.me WhL e tsde
An set auhoritin - Warmoth to j to be
rise. sdam t to aalw bl to h"-D-u tp
, Bl postponed ntl Fridaoy une has eihL tO
An at fehr the obsernwee of
Bill ledelatly postpoed b-,n amd Ie Odresa
ine- atoS. s Sw Ish .le d
* sad terwad thei owa
Ssteume- bolietlda the

xml | txt