Foster v. Master and Wardens of the Port of New Orleans
| Citation | 94 U.S. 246,24 L.Ed. 122 |
| Parties | FOSTER v. MASTER AND WARDENS OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. H. J. Leovy for the plaintiff in error. No counsel appeared for the defendants in error.
This controversy has arisen out of an act of the legislature of Louisiana, approved March 6, 1869. By the first section it was made the duty of the master and wardens of the port of New Orleans to offer their services to make a survey of the hatches of all sea-going vessels which should arrive at that port, and a penalty was prescribed for the neglect of this duty. The second section declares 'that it shall be unlawful for any person other than the said master and wardens, or their legally constituted deputy, to make any survey of the hatches of seagoing vessels coming to said port of New Orleans, or to make any survey of damaged goods coming on board of such vessels, whether such survey be made on board or on shore, or to give certificates on orders for sale of such damaged goods at auction, or to do any other of the acts and things prescribed by law for said master and wardens to do and perform; and the person doing such illegal and forbidden acts, his instigators and encouragers, shall be liable and bound to pay in solido to the said master and wardens $100, with damages and costs, for each of said illegal and forbidden acts so done.'
The petition avers that Foster resides in the city of New Orleans, and has been and is continually violating the provisions of the act by making surveys of the hatches of sea-going vessels arriving at that port, and of damaged goods, and has been and is engaged in acting as, and performing the duties which belonged to, the master and wardens of the port.
An injunction was prayed for. It was granted by the lower court, and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. A writ of error was thereupon sued out by Foster, and the case is thus brought before this court for review.
The defendants in error have failed to enter their appearance, and no brief in their behalf has been submitted. We shall, therefore, devote but few remarks to the case.
The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sect. 8, gives to Congress the power 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.'
That the provisions of this act are regulations of both foreign and inter-state commerce is a proposition which requires no argument to support it. They are a clog and a blow to all such commerce in the port to which they relate. Their enactment involved a power which belongs exclusively to Congress, and which a State could not, therefore, properly exercise. In Steamship Company v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. 31, it was held that a statute of a State enacting that the master...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hedrick
...the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Mosby (Mo. Sup.) 233 S. W. 446; Foster v. Master and Wardens, 94 U. S. loc. cit. 248, 24 L. Ed. 122, and cases cited; 14 R. C. L. § 12, p. 694. The business of public warehouses differs from those affected by other i......
-
First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. Garrison
...18; Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. United States, 1914, 234 U.S. 342, 34 S.Ct. 833, 58 L.Ed. 1341. 35 Foster v. Master and Wardens of Port of New Orleans, 1877, 94 U.S. 246, 24 L.Ed. 122. See also Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 1912, 222 U.S. 380, 32 S.Ct. 152, 56 L.Ed. 240; N......
-
State v. Butterfield Live Stock Co.
... ... Wickham, 92 U.S. 259, 23 ... L. ed. 543; Foster v. Master, etc., 94 U.S. 246, 24 ... L. ed. 122; Leisy v ... ...
-
Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Adams
... ... In ... support of the main points, see Foster v. Master & ... Warden, 94 U.S. 246; Moran v. New Orleans, ... Tel. Co., ... 127 Ib., 411; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 Ib., ... 640; Lyng v. Michigan, 135 Ib., ... ...