Isaac Smith, Owner of the Sloop Volant, Plaintiff In Error v. the State of Maryland

Decision Date01 December 1855
PartiesISAAC R. SMITH, OWNER OF THE SLOOP VOLANT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the second judicial circuit of the State of Maryland, in and for Anne Arundel county.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Latrobe, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Campbell, for the State of Maryland.

Mr. Latrobe contended that all the laws of Maryland, namely: 1833, ch. 254; 1837, ch. 310; 1846, ch. 38; 1849, ch. 217, and a law passed in 1854, should be taken in connection as forming a body of legislation in pari materia. 12 How. 299.

These laws were said to be unconstitutional on these grounds, namely:——

1. Because they are repugnant to the 8th section of the first

article of the constitution of the United States, which grants to congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

2. Because they are repugnant to the 2d section of the third article, which declares that the judicial powers of the United States shall extend to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

3. Because the said laws contain (with the exception of the law of 1854) no provision for an oath or affirmation as to probable cause before issuing a warrant, nor was such oath or affirmation, in fact, made, or any warrant issued prior to the seizure.

4. Because the said laws are repugnant to the second section of article fourth, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

Mr. Campbell made the following points:——

1. That the soil of the Chesapeake Bay is vested in the State of Maryland as the successor of the lord proprietary, and that the object and effect of the laws assailed is to protect the oysters while fixed in such soil, and for which it alone has title to them before they become articles of commerce; and that the protection thus extended does not obstruct the free use of the waters of Mayland for commerce or navigation. Browne and Kennedy, 5 Harris & Johnson, 195; Casey and Inloes, 1 Gill, 512; Corfield and Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 371; Bennett and Boggs, Baldwin, 72; Martin and waddell, 16 Pet. 367; 3 Kent's Commentaries, 439.

2. That the offences punished by the laws in question are not within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the United States. Corfield and Coryell, (above cited;) United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 386; 2 Brown's Civ. and Adm. Law, Appendix, 420.

Mr. Justice CURTIS delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court for Anne Arundel county, in the State of Maryland, under the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789. It appears by the record that the plaintiff in error, being a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, was the owner of a sloop called The Volant, which was regularly enrolled at the port of Philadelphia, and licensed to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries; that, in March, 1853, the schooner was seized by the sheriff of Anne Arundel county, while engaged in dredging for oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, and was condemned to be forfeited to the State of Maryland by a justice of the peace of that State, before whom the proceeding was had; that on appeal to the circuit court for the county, being the highest court in which a decision could be had, this decree of forfeiture was affirmed; and that the plaintiff in error insisted, in the circuit court, that such seizure and condemnation were repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

This vessel being enrolled and licensed, under the constitution and laws of the United States, to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and while so employed having been seized and condemned under a law of a State, the owner has a right to the decision of this court upon the question, whether the law of the State, by virtue of which condemnation passed, was repugnant to the constitution or laws of the United States.

That part of the law in question containing the prohibition and inflicting the penalty, which appears to have been applied by the state court to this case, is as follows: (1833, ch. 254:)——

'An Act to prevent the Destruction of Oysters in the Waters of this State.

'Whereas, the destruction of oysters in the waters of this State is seriously apprehended, from the destructive instrument used in taking them, therefore——

SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Maryland, That it shall be unlawful to take or catch oysters in any of the waters of this State with a scoop or drag, or any other instrument than such tongs and rakes as are now in use, and authorized by law; and all persons whatever are hereby forbid the use of such instruments in taking or catching oysters in the waters of this State, on pain of forfeiting to the State the boat or vessel employed for the purpose, together with her papers, furniture, tackle, and apparel, and all things on board the same.'

The question is, whether this law of the State afforded valid cause for seizing a licensed and enrolled vessel of the United States, and interrupting its voyage, and pronouncing for its forfeiture. To have this effect, we must find that the State of Maryland had power to enact this law.

The purpose of the law is, to protect the growth of oysters in the waters of the State, by prohibiting the use of particular instruments in dredging for them. No question was made in the court below whether the place in question be within the territory of the State. The law is, in terms, limited to the waters of the State. If the county court extended the operation of the law beyond those waters, that was a distinct and substantive ground of exception, to be specifically taken and presented on the record, accompanied by all the necessary facts to enable this court to determine whether a voyage of a vessel licensed and enrolled for the coasting trade, had been interrupted by force of a law of a State while on the high seas, and out of the territorial jurisdiction of such State.

To present to this court such a question upon a writ of error to a state court, it is not enough that it might have been made in the court below; it must appear by the record that it was made, and decided against the plaintiff in error.

As we do not find from the record that any question of this kind was raised, we must consider that the acts in question were done, and the seizure made, within the waters of the State; and that the law, if valid, was not misapplied by the county court by extending its operation, contrary to its terms, to waters without the limits of the State. What we have to consider under this writ of error is, whether the law itself, as above recited, be repugnant to the constitution or laws of the United States.

It was argued that it is repugnant to that clause of the constitution which confers on congress power to regulate commerce, because it authorizes the seizure, detention, and forfeiture of a vessel enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, under the laws of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 cases
  • Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • December 29, 2017
    ...and environmental protection measures otherwise within their police power." Id. at 277, 97 S.Ct. 1740 (quoting Smith v. Maryland , 18 How. 71, 15 L.Ed. 269 (1855) ). In Huron Portland Cement , the Supreme Court said, "The mere possession of a federal license, however, does not immunize a sh......
  • Provo City v. Jacobsen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 3, 1947
    ... ... JACOBSEN et al. (STATE, Intervener) No. 6774 Supreme Court of Utah ... to the plaintiff, wherein the State of Utah intervened ... 519, 135 S.E. 589; ... Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502, 113 So. 708; ... Carpenter v ... 1 ... Since the state is the owner as trustee for the people of the ... state of ... 471, 13 L.Ed. 220; ... Smith v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 71, 74, 18 How ... 71, 74, 15 L.Ed ... The ... court was therefore in error in its findings against ... plaintiff. The ... ...
  • Huron Portland Cement Company v. City of Detroit, Michigan
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1960
    ...of a vessel 'licensed for the coasting trade, under the laws of the United States, while engaged in that trade.' Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 74, 15 L.Ed. 269. The present case obvi- ously does not even approach such an extreme, for the Detroit ordinance requires no more than compliance w......
  • Tart v. Com. of Mass.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • January 7, 1991
    ...of a vessel "licensed for the coasting trade, under the laws of the United States, while engaged in that trade." Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 74 [15 L.Ed. 269]. The present case obviously does not even approach such an extreme, for the Detroit ordinance ... does not exclude a licensed ves......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FISH.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 No. 4, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...[upsilon]. Post: The New Learning, 13 GREEN BAG 31, 31 (2009). (151) Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 177-78 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805). (152) 59 U.S. 71 (153) Id. at 75. (154) See Blumm & Ritchie, supra note 92, at 693-701 (evaluating the spread of state control over taking laws, as well as t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT