As there were about one thousand persons employed in the business in the parishes concerned, the effect was broad-spread. The butchers held a meeting immediately to consult on the best plan to defeat the bill[166] and organized an association on July 21. Some hundreds of suits were brought in the various district courts on the one side or the other, sometimes in combinations, sometimes by individuals. The ground of this opposition was that the act created a monopoly and was a violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and of the Louisiana Bill of Rights. The Sixth District Court held the law unconstitutional, while in the Fifth, in which the new company had instituted suit against the association, the verdict was in favor of the company. Appeals from these several decisions came before the State Supreme Court by what is there known as “suspensive appeals,” but the decision was not rendered until April 11, 1870, when the rights of the new company were upheld. In course of time,[167] the cases came before the Supreme Court of the United States when the decision of the State court was sustained on the ground of police regulation, “a power incapable of any very exact definition or limitation.”[168] FOOTNOTES: [60] “The city of New Orleans will be what we intend to make it, and we intend to make this city bloom as the rose, and we intend to enhance and increase this city of New Orleans, and we intend to open every by-road, and this very bill is going to make the city bigger, and we are going to pass this act. We intend not only to legislate for the city of New Orleans, but to stamp our record upon the door of this House of Representatives, so it will remain a century of years,” etc. House Debates, 1869, 359-60; also, 415. [61] House Debates, 1869, 110. [62] _Ibid._, 354. [63] New Orleans _Commercial Bulletin_, Jan. 22, 1869. [64] House Debates, 1869, 389. [65] _Ibid._, 1870, 287. See also Campbell’s speech, Sen. Deb., 679. [66] “The gentleman from Lafourche has spoken of bribery. Now, there is another absurdity, for a member gave him a cigar for a bribe, but he did not offer me one.” House Debates, 1869, 126. And “I rise to a point of order--this bill is a swindle,” 264. Again, a member proposed in all seriousness that the House adjourn in respect to the recent marriage of one of its members. When the speaker objected to such levity, he retorted: “It is a very serious event for the gentleman from St. Charles.” _Ibid._, 135. Another member rose to make the point of order that “the committee had no dignity,” 264. [67] On the immigration bill the following irrelevant amendments were offered: That 2000 shall be Chinese and 1000 Arabs. That a thousand thugs of India be included. “I move to include 500 monkeys.” That the company bring over half the population of Europe. _Ibid._, 1870, 281. [68] _Ibid._, 1869, 242. [69] _Ibid._, 1869, 112; Sen. Deb., 1870, 771, 749. [70] _Ibid._, 1870, 178. [71] _Ibid._, 149.