Steamship Company v. Portwardens
Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
Parties | STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. PORTWARDENS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
The Constitution of the United States ordains that Congress shall have the power to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States;' that 'no State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws;' and that 'no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage.'
With these prohibitions of the Constitution upon State legislation in force as the supreme law of the land, a statute of the State of Louisiana, passed on the 15th of March, 1855, enacted that the master and wardens of the port of New Orleans should be entitled to demand and receive, in addition to other fees, the sum of five dollars, whether called on to perform any service or not, for every vessel arriving in that port.
Under this act the sum of five dollars was demanded of the steamship Charles Morgan, belonging to the Southern Steamship Company of New Orleans, and payment being refused, suit was brought against the owner and judgment recovered in a justice's court, which judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. The object of this suit in error was to reverse that judgment.
The question presented by the record, therefore, was this: Is the act of the legislature of Louisiana repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?- Mr. Durant, for the Port-Master and Wardens, defendants in error:
The statute in question is not within any of the prohibitions of the Constitution.
1. It is not an attempt to 'regulate commerce.' It is but a regulation of the police of the port of New Orleans, and belongs to that class of laws which it will be admitted that the States have a right to enact; such as inspection, quarantine and health laws, and those regulating their pilots, or internal commerce, &c.
2. Nor can the fee of five dollars allowed to the portwardens be viewed as an 'impost or duty on imports or exports.' The fee is to be paid to the wardens for the same reason that half pilotage is to be paid to pilots when they offer their services, although the services are not accepted. It has always been held that this part of the pilotage law is constitutional.1 The office and functions of portwardens are as indispensable for the purposes of navigation and commerce, as the office and functions of pilots.
3. Nor yet is it a 'duty upon tonnage,' which by necessary intendment is a duty proportioned to the tonnage of the vessel; that is to say, a certain rate or so much per ton.
Mr. S. N. Salomon, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
That the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States is vested in Congress, and that no State without the consent of Congress can lay any duties or imposts on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, or any duty of tonnage, are familiar provisions of the Constitution, which have been frequently and thoroughly examined in former judgments of this court.
The power to regulate commerce was given to Congress in comprehensive terms, and with the single exception of the power to lay duties on exports. And it was thus given, so far as it relates to commerce between the States, with the obvious intent to place that commerce beyond interruption or embarrassment arising from the conflicting or hostile State regulations.
At the same time it was not intended to interfere with the exercise of State authority upon subjects properly within State jurisdiction. The power to enact inspection laws is expressly recognized as not affected by the grant of power to regulate commerce. And some other powers, the exercise of which may, in various degrees, affect commerce, have always been held not to be within the grant to Congress. To this class it is settled belong quarantine and other health laws, laws concerning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
George Simpson v. David Shepard No 291 George Simpson v. Emma Kennedy No 292 George Simpson v. William Shillaber No 293
...bridges across its navigable streams is plenary.' Id. p. 683. While the state may not impose a duty of tonnage (Southern 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......
-
State of Indiana ex rel. Wolf, Auditor v. Pullman Palace-Car Co.
...Maryland, 6 Wall. 31; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; Hays v. Steam-ship Co. 17 How. 596; Steam-ship Co. v. Port-wardens, 6 Wall. 31; Crandall v. Nevada, Id. 36; Almy California, 24 How. 169; Tonnage Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 232; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, Id. 300. [71] Transp. Co. v. Wheelin......
-
Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. Nolan
...Wall. 300. [22] Reading R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 232; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat, 418; Hays v. S.S. Co. 17 How. 596; S.S. Co. v. Port-wardens, 6 Wall. 31; Cases, 7 How, 283; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 36; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169; Tonnage Tax Cases, 15 Wall. 262; State Tax ......
-
Foster v. Jefferson County Quorum Court
...an Alabama tax on the sale of liquor. The previous year, it struck down similar taxes in Nevada and Louisiana. Steamship Co. v. Portwardens, 6 Wall 31, 18 L.Ed. 749 (1867); Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 18 L.Ed. 745 (1867). During the same period, other states' appellate courts were consid......