George Smith, Plaintiff In Error v. William Turner,of the Port of New York James Norris, Plaintiff In Error v. the City of Boston
| Citation | 7 How. 283,12 L.Ed. 702,48 U.S. 283 |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Docket Number | HEALTH-COMMISSIONER |
| Parties | GEORGE SMITH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM TURNER,OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK. JAMES NORRIS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE CITY OF BOSTON |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
THESE were kindred cases, and were argued together. They were both brought up to this court by writs of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act; the case of Smith v. Turner being brought from the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors of the State of New York, and the case of Norris v. The City of Boston from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The opinions of the justices of this court connect the two cases so closely, that the same course will be pursued in reporting them which was adopted in the License Cases. Many of the arguments of counsel relate indiscriminately to both. A statement of each case will, therefore, be made separately, and the arguments and opinions be placed in their appropriate class, as far as practicable.
In the first volume of the Revised Statutes of New York, pages 445, 446, title 4, will be found the law of the State whose constitutionality was brought into question in this case. The law relates to the marine hospital, then established upon Staten Island, and under the superintendence of a physician and certain commissioners of health.
The seventh section provides, that 'the health-commissioner shall demand and be entitled to receive, and in case of neglect or refusal to pay shall sue for and recover, in his name of office,
Page 284
the following sums from the master of every vessel that shall arrive in the port of New York, viz.:——
'1. From the master of every vessel from a foreign port, for himself and each cabin passenger, one dollar and fifty cents; for each steerage passenger, mate, sailor, or mariner, one dollar.
'2. From the master of each coasting-vessel, for each person on board, twenty-five cents; but no coasting-vessel from the States of New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island shall pay for more than one voyage in each month, computing from the first voyage in each year.'
The eighth section provides that the money so received shall be denominated 'hospital moneys.' And the ninth section gives 'each master paying hospital moneys a right to demand and recover from each person the sum paid on his account.' The tenth section declares any master who shall fail to make the above payments within twenty-four hours after the arrival of his vessel in the port shall forfeit the sum of one hundred dollars. By the eleventh section, the commissioners of health are required to account annually to the Comptroller of the State for all moneys received by them for the use of the marine hospital; 'and if such moneys shall in any one year exceed the sum necessary to defray the expenses of their trust, including their own salaries, and exclusive of such expenses as are to be borne and paid as a part of the contingent charges of the city of New York, they shall pay over such surplus to the treasurer of the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in the city of New York, for the use of the society.'
Smith was master of the British ship Henry Bliss, which arrived at New York in June, 1841, and landed two hundred and ninety-five steerage passengers. Turner, the health-commissioner, brought an action against him for the sum of $295. To this the following demurrer was filed, viz.:——
'And the said George Smith, defendant in this suit, by M. R. Zabriskie, his attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury, when, &c., and says that the said declaration, and the matters therein contained, in manner and form as the same are above stated and set forth, are not sufficient in law for the said plaintiff to have or maintain his aforesaid action thereof against the said defendant, and that the said defendant is not bound by law to answer the same; for that the statute of this State, in said declaration referred to, in pursuance of which the said plaintiff claims to be entitled to demand and receive from the said defendant the sum of money in said declaration named, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and void, and this he is ready to verify.'
The plaintiff joined in demurrer, and the Supreme Court
Page 285
of Judicature of the People of the State of New York overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the plaintiff, on the 28th of September, 1842. The cause was carried, by writ of error, to the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, which affirmed the judgment of the court below in October, 1843. A writ of error, issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, brought the case up to this court.
Norris was an inhabitant of St. John's, in the Province of New Brunswick and kingdom of Great Britain. He was the master of a vessel, and arrived in the port of Boston in June, 1837, in command of a schooner belonging to the port of St. John's, having on board nineteen alien passengers. Prior to landing, he was compelled, by virtue of a law of Massachusetts which is set forth in the special verdict of the jury, to pay the sum of two dollars for each passenger to the city of Boston.
At the October term, 1837, of the Court of Common Pleas, Norris brought a suit against the city of Boston, to recover this money, and was nonsuited. The cause was carried up to the Supreme Judicial Court, where it was tried in November, 1842.
The jury found a special verdict as follows:——
'The jury find, that at a session of the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, holden at the city of Boston, on the 20th of April, 1837, the following law was passed and enacted, to wit, 'An act relating to alien passengers.'
"Sec. 1st. When any vessel shall arrive at any port or harbour within this State, from any port or place without the same, with alien passengers on board, the officer or officers whom the mayor and aldermen of the city, or the selectmen of the town, where it is proposed to land such passengers, are hereby authorized and required to appoint, shall go on board such vessels and examine into the condition of said passengers.
"Sec. 2d. If, on such examination, there shall be found among said passengers any lunatic, idiot, maimed, aged, or infirm person, incompetent, in the opinion of the officer so examining, to maintain themselves, or who have been paupers in any other country, no such alien passenger shall be permitted to land until the master, owner, consignee, or agent of such vessel shall have given to such city or town a bond in the sum of one thousand dollars, with good and sufficient security, that no such lunatic or indigent passenger shall become a city, town, or State charge within ten years from the date of said bond.
Page 286
"Sec. 3d. No alien passenger, other than those spoken of in the preceding section, shall be permitted to land until the master, owner, consignee, or agent of such vessel shall pay to the regularly appointed boarding officer the sum of two dollars for each passenger so landing; and the money so collected shall be paid into the treasury of the city or town, to be appropriated as the city or town may direct for the support of foreign paupers.
"Sec. 4th. The officer or officers required in the first section of this act to be appointed by the mayor and aldermen, or the selectmen, respectively, shall, from time to time, notify the pilots of the port of said city or town of the place or places where the said examination is made, and the said pilots shall be required to anchor all such vessels at the place so appointed, and require said vessels there to remain till such examination shall be made; and any pilot who shall refuse or neglect to perform the duty imposed upon him by this section, or who shall through negligence or design permit any alien passengers to land before such examination shall be had, shall forfeit to the city or town a sum not less than fifty nor more than two thousand dollars.
"Sec. 5th. The provisions of this act shall not apply to any vessel coming on shore in distress, or to any alien passengers taken from any wreck when life is in danger.
"Sec. 6th. The twenty-seventh section of the forty-sixth chapter of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed, and the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth sections of the said chapter shall relate to the provisions of this act in the same manner as they now relate to the section hereby repealed.
"Sec. 7th. This act shall take effect from and after the passage of the same, April 20th, 1837.'
'And the jury further find, that the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth sections, above referred to, are in the words following, to wit:——
"Sec. 28th. If any master or commanding officer of any vessel shall land, or permit to be landed, any alien passengers, contrary to the provisions of the preceding section, the master or commanding officer of such vessel, and the owner or consignee thereof, shall forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars for every alien passenger so landed; provided always, that the provisions aforesaid shall not be construed to extend to seamen sent from foreign places by consuls or vice-consuls of the United States.
"Sec. 29th. If any master or commanding officer of any vessel shall land any alien passenger at any place within this State other than that to which such vessel shall be destined,
Page 287
with intention to avoid the requirements aforesaid, such master or commanding officer shall forfeit the sum of one hundred dollars for every alien passenger so landed.'
'And the jury further find, that the plaintiff in the above action is an inhabitant of St. John's, in the Province of New Brunswick and kingdom of Great Britain; that he arrived in the port of Boston on or about the twenty-sixth day of June, A. D. 1837, in command of a certain schooner called the Union Jack, of and belonging to said port of St. John's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. County of Alameda
...... SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, . v. . COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al., ... Page 450 . [528 P.2d 58] Graham & James, Francis L. Tetreault and Paul A. Dezurick, San ... on its own behalf and on behalf of defendant City of Oakland, assessed property taxes on the empty ....) 10 Rather, Sea-Land relies on the 'home-port' doctrine, established in Hays v. Pacific Mail ...-going vessel, owned and registered in New York and operating in interstate commerce between that ......
-
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan
......R., for plaintiffs. . William H. Preston, Jr., Jorge Hernández Pérez and ... A . Plaintiff Gulf Puerto Rico Lines, Inc. * is a corporation ... transportation of goods for hire through the Port of San Juan, 8 among others. . ...See Sprout v. City of South Bend, 277 U.S. 163, 48 S.Ct. 502, 72 ... "Inasmuch as New York does not presently tax the dividends in question, ...1940); Paul Smith Const. Co. v. Buscaglia, 140 F.2d 900 (1 Cir. ......
-
In re Watson
...... extended only to the city of Baltimore; while here the. prohibition is ...Cage, 9 Baxt. 518. . . . [ F ] New York v. Second Avenue R. Co. 32 N.Y. 261; Louisville ...567; Fire Dept. v. Noble, 3. E.D.Smith, 440; De Groot v. Van Duzen, 30 Wend. 390; Com. ...Kirby, 5 Gray, 507; Brummer. v. Boston, 102 Mass. 19; Com. v. Brennan, 103 Mass. 70; ... 226. . . . [ C5 ] Union Co. v. James, 21 Pa.St. 525;. Walters v. Duke, 31 La.Ann. ......
-
Graham v. Richardson Sailer v. Leger
...... v. . Carmen RICHARDSON, Etc. William P. SAILER et al., Appellants, v. Elsie Mary ... judgment was stayed as to all parties plaintiff other than Mrs. Richardson. Probable jurisdiction ... other, more remunerative, work in the city. In February 1970 illness forced her to give up ... Page 371 . King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 ...And in Crane v. New York, 239 U.S. . . Page 373 . 195, 36 S.Ct. 85, ...1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 ......
-
Unforgiving of those who trespass against U.S.: state laws criminalizing immigration status.
..."[a] concurrent power in the States to regulate commerce is an anomaly not found in the Constitution." Smith v. City of Boston, 48 U.S. 283, 396 (1849) (The Passenger Cases); see also McKanders, Hazleton, supra note (31.) See The Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 283. (32.) Id. (33.) WEISSBRODT &......
-
The most-cited Federalist Papers.
...280 (1878); Gilman v. Philadelphia, 70 U.S. 713, 730 n.28 (1865); Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299, 318 (1851); Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283, 352, 369, 374, 396 (1849); id. at 471, 479 (Taney, C.J., dissenting); id. at 503-04 (Daniel, J., dissenting); id. at 533 (Woodbury, J., dissen......
-
Table of Cases
...220 (1979), 1004 Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000), 1023 Smith v. Turner (The Passenger Cases), 48 U.S. 283, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849), 716, 864 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 18 S.Ct. 418, 42 L.Ed. 819 (1898), 1249, 1291 Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 100......
-
ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HARD STATE BORDER CLOSURES IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
...and Freedom of Travel: The Conflict of a Right and a Privilege, 41 GEO. L. J. 63, 71 (1952). 63, 71 (1952). (56) Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283 (57) Id. at 492. (58) 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE COMMENTARIES 134 (Lewis 3d ed. 1902). (59) Steinbach, supra note 53, at 418. (60) Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 4......