OBESCENT CITY, ETC., CO. V. BUTCHESs' DNIOK, ETC., 00. 746 �In all the cases cited from the supreme court of the United States, (Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 57; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, la. 677; Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814,) bearing on the exercise of police power, there is no decision, no argument even, justifying the impairment of the obli- gations of a contract, by the aid of the police power, in order to transfer property rights or privileges from one individual to another, or from one corporation to another. �In the case of Beer Co.v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, a prohibitory law against the sale of malt liquors was maintained, notwithstandiug complainant's charter. �In the case of Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. 8. 677, a nui- sance was allowed to be suppressed by village ordinance, notwith- standing a charter from the state to carry ou a fertilizing business at that very place. �In Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, a penal law prohibiting lot- teries was upheld, notwithstanding a charter from the state to carry on the lottery business. �In each of these cases the right of a state, by exercise of the police power, to suppress a business otherwise legitimate, was recognized, although such business existed under chartered rights previously acquired. �But the proposition of the defendant goes much further, and it is, that, under the police power of the state, by virtue of articles 248 and 268 of the state constitution, the contract privileges given by act No. 118, 1869, to the complainant, are not repealed nor suppressed nor policed, but distributed, and that, therefore, the defendant may law- fully take up the rights so by police power taken from complainant. And it is to be particularly borne in mind that neither the place, nor the manner, nor the charges, nor the inspection, nor the business of complainant are in any way obnoxious. There is no nuisance, no vice, no illegality tainting the conduct of complainant's business, and conse- quently there is no question of public heaith, manners, or morals involved. �Under these circumstances, and with this view of the case, we incline to the opinion that defendant's pretensions cannot be shel- tered under a claimed exercise of the police power, and that if articles 248 and 258 of the constitution of Louisiana, and the city ordinances thereunder, are to have the effect claimed by defendant, then it would amount to an impairment of the obligations oi complainant's contract ��� �
