Cannon v. New Orleans
Decision Date | 01 October 1874 |
Citation | 87 U.S. 577,22 L.Ed. 417,20 Wall. 577 |
Parties | CANNON v. NEW ORLEANS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Louisiana; the case being thus:
The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows:1
- With these provisions in force as fundamental law, the city of New Orleans made an ordinance as follows:
"From and after the 1st day of January, 1853, the levee dues on all steam boats which shall moor or land in any part of the port of New Orleans shall be fixed as follows; ten cents per ton if in port not exceeding five days, and five dollars per day after said five days shall have expired; provided, that boats arriving and departing more than once in each week shall pay only seven cents per ton each trip."
This ordinance was subsequently amended by the substitution of the words "levee and wharfage dues" for the words ':levee dues," and by providing further that "boats making three trips per week shall pay five cents per ton each trip."
The length of both shores of the Mississippi embraced by the port of New Orleans is at least twenty-two miles. The entire portion of the shore on which wharves had been built, was at most two miles; less than one-tenth of the wharved space.
In this state of things and under the ordinance above-mentioned, the city had claimed and collected of one Cannon for several years a tax on his steamboat, the R. E. Lee; and claiming it again Cannon filed a petition to enjoin such further collection, and also to recover back the money already paid. The ground of his petition was, that under each of the above-quoted clauses of the Constitution the ordinances were void. The Supreme Court of the State held the ordinance valid, and dismissed the petition. Its view was thus-expressed:
From the decree of dismissal Cannon brought the case here.
Messrs. R. H. Marr, P. Phillips, and W. W. King, for the plaintiff in error. The brief of these gentlemen mentioned, in the course of its argument, that in the year 1843, and in consequence of a very onerous wharfage tax imposed by the city in 1842, the legislature of Louisiana passed an act as follows:
"From and after the passage of the present act, it shall be incompetent for the mayor and city council of New Orleans, or for either of the municipalities of said city to enact, or enforce, or execute any law, ordinance, or regulation now enacted, whereby any tax, duty, impost, or charge of any nature whatsoever, shall be or is imposed upon goods, produce, wares, and merchandise of whatsoever kind or nature, landed in or shipped from the corporate limits of the said city."
They further stated that the Supreme Court of the State decided that after this act this wharfage tax could not be collected.4
Mr. W. H. Peckham, contra.
This writ of error is based upon the proposition that the city ordinance is in conflict with two clauses of the Constitution of the United States, namely, that which grants to Congress the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the States, and with the Indian tribes; and that which forbids the States to levy any duty of tonnage without the consent of Congress.
We shall only consider the question raised by the latter clause.
It is argued in support of the validity of the ordinance that the money collect under it is only a compensation for the use of the wharves which are owned by the city, and which have been built and are kept in repair by the city corporation.
Under the evidence in this case of the condition of the levee and banks of the Mississippi River within the limits of the city, to which the language of the ordinance must be applied, this contention cannot be sustained. It is in proof that of the twenty miles and more of the levee and banks of the Mississippi within the city, not more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Streckfus Steamers, Inc. v. Kiersky
...Thomas Barlun, 55 S.Ct. 31; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa., 114 U.S. 196; Parkersburg v. City of Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691; Cannon v. City of New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. So. Pac. v. Jenson, 244 U.S. 205; 19 R. C. L. 892; 43 C. J. 537 and 827; 28 Cyc. 3......
-
George Simpson v. David Shepard No 291 George Simpson v. Emma Kennedy No 292 George Simpson v. William Shillaber No 293
...S. S. Co. v. Portwardens, 6 Wall. 31, 18 L. ed. 749; State Tonnage Tax Cases [Cox v. Lott] 12 Wall. 212, 20 L. ed. 373; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577, 22 L. ed. 417), it may regulate wharfage charges and exact tolls for the use of artificial facilities provided under its authority. Th......
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...110, 19 L. Ed. 342; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall, 123, 19 L. Ed. 382; Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479, 21 L. Ed. 470; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577, 22 L. Ed. 417, Compare Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 245, 246, 8 L. Ed. 4 See the debate in the Senate at the preceding session. 48 Con......
-
Commonwealth v. Nickerson
...U. S. 691;Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678;Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543; the regulation of wharfs, piers, and docks, Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577;Packet Company v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80;Packet Company v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423;Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559;Tran......
-
The Misinterpretation of the Tonnage Clause in Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez
...U.S. 261 (1935). [121]Id. at 263 (internal quotation marks omitted). [122]Id. at 267. [123]Id. at 266-67; see also Cannon v. New Orleans, 87 U.S. 577, 581 (1874) (although the Supreme Court determined that the tax in question was a violation of the Tonnage Clause, the Court nonetheless made......