SlaughterHouse Cases (1872) 83 U.S. 36, was the first high court case construing the Thirteenth Amendment. In that case an exclusive franchise to favored butchers violated the privileges and immunities of those excluded. Although a divided Supreme Court in one of its most controversial decisions limited application of the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause exclusively to the rights associated with national citizenship, it was quick to hold the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause securing the entitlement of federal citizenship in no way limits the scope of privileges or immunities granted by state citizenship. (Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. at 74-75.) The Supreme Court said: "That personal servitude was meant, is proved by the use of the word `involuntary,' which can only apply to human beings." The Supreme Court indicated that the privileges and immunities clause provides "no security for the citizen of the State in which the privileges were claimed," (id. at 77.), that is, the clause does not "profess to control the power of the State governments over the rights of its own citizens." (Id.) The Slaughter-House Cases involved a constitutional challenge by several butchers to a Louisiana public health law that: incorporated a business, provided that business with a monopoly on the issuance of permits to slaughter animals for food, and specified localities in which slaughtering would be permitted. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held there was no violation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the labor rights cited by the butchers were not rights granted to them by virtue of their United States citizenship, but rather rights that the butchers had by virtue of their state citizenship. In the majority opinion, Justice Miller construed the text of the Clause as protecting only rights conferred by federal, rather than state, citizenship: Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the States as such, and that they are left to the State governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no State can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so. But lest it should be said that no such privileges and immunities are to be found if those we have been considering are excluded, we venture to suggest some which own their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.... The Court then went on to provide several examples of rights that are protected under the Privileges or Immunities Clause, based on cases in other courts. These "privileges or immunities" protected by virtue of national citizenship include the rights: "To come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions"; to "free access to its seaports ... to the subtreasuries, land offices, and courtsof justice in the several states"; "to demand the care and protection of the Federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government"; "to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus "; "to use navigable waters of the united States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several States"; those "rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations"; to "become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein"; those "rights secured by the thirteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other clause of the fourteenth equal protection." (Id. at 79-80.)