Inman Steamship Company v. Tinker
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
| Citation | 94 U.S. 238,24 L.Ed. 118 |
| Parties | INMAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. TINKER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This was a bill in equity filed by the appellant for an injunction to restrain the appellee, the captain of the port of New York and his successors in office, from collecting a fee of one and one-half per cent per ton, to be computed from the registered tonnage of certain vessels entering that port, pursuant to sect. 6, c. 487, of the acts of the legislature of the State of New York, entitled
That section is as follows:——
The bill alleges that the complainant, the Inman Steamship Company, a corporation created under the laws of Great Britain, is the owner of a line of steamships belonging to Liverpool, and running thence back and forthe to the port of New York, three of which vessels in every five weeks arrive at and enter said port, and load and unload and make fast to a wharf therein; that on account thereof the defendant has heretofore exacted upwards of $125 every five weeks, or over $1,300 per annum, whether or not any services were rendered by or required of him and the harbor-masters. The bill further alleges that the complainant, on failure so to pay such fee, is liable to be charged in double the amount, to have its vessels attached and seized, and to a multiplicity of suits on account thereof.
The defendant demurred to the bill generally, for want of equity. The court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill; whereupon the complainant appealed to this court.
Mr. William M. Evarts and Mr. Francis Lynde Stetson for the appellant.
The sixth section of the act under which the fees in question are collected is a regulation of commerce, and therefore unconstitutional and void. Henderson v. The Mayor, &c., 92 U. S. 259; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203; Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. 31; Peete v. Morgan, 19 id. 581; State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 id. 204; City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102.
The act, without the consent of Congress, lays a duty on tonnage, and is, therefore, in violation of sect. 10 of the first article of the Constitution. State Tonnage Tax Cases, supra; Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, supra; Peete v. Morgan, supra; Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577.
Mr. Henry J. Scudder, contra.
The act in question is not a regulation of commerce within the intendment of the Constitution, but an exercise of a power reserved to the State for the proper government of persons within its jurisdiction. It is in aid and furtherance of commerce, and not to its hindrance. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 591; City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299; Steamboat New York v. Rea, 18 id. 223; Owners of the Brig James Gray v. Owners of the Ship John Frazer et al., 21 id. 184.
The control by a State of its internal affairs, with a view to the maintenance of order and public safety, does not infringe the powers of Congress to regulate commerce, although it may affect the subjects or instruments of commerce. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; United States v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, supra; Port Wardens v. Ship M. J. Ward, 14 La. 293; Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450.
The adaptation of the fees to a standard of tonnage is the most just and convenient method of measuring them. The act does not lay a duty of tonnage.
This is a bill in equity brought to enjoin the appellee from collecting a port charge imposed upon the vessels of the appellant in the harbor of New York, by an act of the legislature of the State, a copy of which is annexed to the bill, and made a part of it. The bill sets forth the following facts: The appellant is a foreign corporation, and the owner of three steamships, each of which enters the port of New York once within every five weeks. The vessels are respectively of the burden of 2,950 tons, 2,823 tons, and of 2,712 tons. All these vessels belong to the port of Liverpool, in England, and run between that port and the port of New York. The character and object of the act of the legislature complained of are indicated in its title, which is, 'An Act defining and regulating the powers, duties, and compensation of the captain of the port and harbormasters of the port of New York, passed May 22, 1862, three-fifths being present; amended April 17, 1865.' The sixth section declares:——
'The following fees shall be collected under this act, and no others: All ships or vessels of the United States of one hundred tons burden or more, except lighters, tugs, barges and canal-boats, sound and river steamboats employed on regular lines, and all ships or vessels that are permitted by the laws of the United States to enter on the same terms as vessels of the United States, which shall enter the port of New York, or load or unload, or make fast to any wharf therein, shall pay one and one half of one cent per ton, to be computed from the tonnage expressed in the registers of enrolments of such ships or vessels respectively; and all other foreign ships which shall arrive at and enter the same port, and load or unload, or make fast to any wharf therein, shall pay three cents per ton, to be computed on the tonnage expressed in the registers or documents on board,' &c.
In default of payment as prescribed, it is declared that the master, owner, or consignee, upon whom demand of payment may have been made, shall pay double the amount of such fees, to be recovered in the name of the captain of the port. The amount which the appellant was required to pay, and did pay, was one cent and a half per ton upon the tonnage of their three vessels respectively upon every arrival of each one in the American port. The bill seeks to relieve them from this burden in future. The respondent demurred to the bill in the court below. The demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed. The case was thereupon removed to this court by appeal.
The following clauses of the Constitution of the United States are invoked in behalf of the appellant as sustaining the bill:——
ART. 1,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. State of Kansas On the Relation of Coleman
...because the matter is not within the province of state legislation, but within that of national legislation. Inman S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238, 24 L. ed. 118,'—citing Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 20......
-
State of Indiana ex rel. Wolf, Auditor v. Pullman Palace-Car Co.
... ... garnered into the treasury of the railway company, and not a ... tax upon the commerce which produced those fruits; (2) ... Morgan, 19 ... Wall. 581; Cannon v. N.O. 20 Wall. 577; Inman S.S. Co. v ... Tinker, 94 U.S. 238 ... [ 80 ] Transp. Co. v ... ...
-
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. State
...93 U.S. 102; 95 U.S. 487; Id. 465; 9 Wheaton, 1; 162 U.S. 197, 212; 196 U.S. 1; 31 U.S. Stat. at Large, 1446; 22 How. 227; 93 U.S. 274; 94 U.S. 238; 96 387; 124 U.S. 465; 129 U.S. 148; 158 U.S. 98; 167 U.S. 633; 207 U.S. 494. 3. The act, as applied to interstate commerce, is arbitrary, unre......
-
Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez
...Lines v. Alabama ex rel. State Docks Comm'n, 296 U.S. 261, 265, 56 S.Ct. 194, 80 L.Ed. 215 (1935) (citing Inman S.S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U.S. 238, 243, 24 L.Ed. 118 (1876) ); see also T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 596 (6th ed. 1890). Over a century ago, however, this Court found that ......
-
The Misinterpretation of the Tonnage Clause in Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez
...of a vessel." Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama ex rel. State Docks Comm'n, 296 U.S. 261, 265 (1935) (citing Inman S.S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U.S. 238, 243 [55] The fee paid for landing, loading, or unloading goods on a wharf. Black's Law Dictionary 1626 (8th ed. 2004). [56] The act or service of ......