Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-06-29

tion, rs to the Which claims his birth or resi-
dcnce."
OPINION
Or The CHAScErLon. upon an application fol
an injunction in the case of the Steam Boa
Olive Branch. Delivered 14th June, 1924
The NORTH River
Steam Boat Company,
John II. Livingston.
The exclusive right granted by this state tc
Robert r. livingston and R,bcrt Fulton, te
navigate all w cts within its jurisdictions with
boats moved by fire or steam, SO far as that
right comprehcnds navigation of the Hudson
between the cities of New York and Troy. is
nav vested in the north river steam boat com.
pany.
The defendant is the possessor of steam
boat named the Olive Branch; and the bill states
that this boat is now employed by him, in navi-
CATION and the transporta of passengers, be-
tween the cities of New York and Albany, and
intermediate places, in violation of the exclrl-
siye right of tue compliments. Upon this bill,
the conplainants ask an injunction to restrain
the defendant from navigating the Olive Branch
between the cities of Albany and New York.
On the part of the defendant, it appears that
the Olive Branch has been enrolled, and has a
liCenCc ioT OH tne CO1StlDG trade,
The courts of this state have heretofore de-
tornined, that the exclusive grant to Living
ston and Fulton, is in all respects, valid. One
ofthe decisions made by the highest court of this
state, declaring that grant valid. has been re-
Gently reversed, by the supreme court of the
United States: and the opinion and decree of
the supreme court, now before this court,
as they are before tile public.
The facts constituting the case Of Gibbons a.
n L. L.. I1lI al.
that two steam boats, having licenses for the
cJasting trade were employed in navigation be-
tween port in New Jersey and a port in this
state. The supreme court has decided, that
these boats were authorised to pass from one
state to the other, and for that purpose, to nayi
gate the waters of this state, Notwithstanding
the grant of this state to Livingston and Fulton
That court has determined, that the exclusive
grant Of this state is void, against steam vessels
having licenses for the coasting trade, when
snch vessels arrive in this state from another
state, and when they proceed hence to- another
state. This was the direct question before that
tribunal; this question has received direct de-
cision; aud / do not perceive, that any propo.
sition more comprehensive, has been determin-
ed by the supreme court.
In the opinion given by the supreme court,
the effect of license for the coasting trade is
discussed, and its efficacy, in respect to yoy-
age from one state to another, is determined
but the same opinion considers the act concern
ing the coastng trade, as an exercise of the pow
or of the Congress to regulate commerce among
the states; and it admits the distinction between
commerce among other states, and the internal
commerce Of particular state. fla license
eonfcrs right to navigate from state to state,
this proposition decided the cause between
Gibbons and Ogden, and rendered the dicision
ofany other question, unnecessary. Ifindaed,
a license gives a right to navigate from one
place to another In all cases, and as well where
the voyage is wholly In the same state, as where
il is partly in different states, this proposition
would also have dec:dci that cause; but this pro-
positionhas no. been announced, while the right
to navigate from one state to another, has been
distinctly adiudged. 1t is not supposed, that the
supreme court intended to adjudge the grant oil
this state nult, to any extent greater than was
necessary for the decision of the cause before it.
No court of justice can intend or desire, that
the reasons given for its decision, should be dis.
joined fran the facts before 1t, aud the question
which it is bound to decide. An exposition o.
the reasons of court, is Justly referred to the
case before it; IFS arguments and all lis expires
sioas, are considered as used in application t.
the facts Of the case, and 10 some ultimate pro
position which the court plainly afiirms or OK
pTessiy denies,
The decree and the opinion of the su2rea1t
court then determine, that the grant of ti
state to Livingston and Fulton, is invalid, in res
pect 10 navigation between this state and AM
other state, by vessels licensed for the coastine
trade. This seems to me to be the result of al
the views of that court; the only conclusion
which il intended to deduce from all its argu
Incnts and illustrations.
The grant to Livingston and Fulton having
been a1judged valid in its full extent, by tb'
highest tribunal Of this state; and being now al
~ lged voil, in respect to navigation betweeI
this state aud any other; might briefly declare
that navigation within the state, by steam yes
scls not arriving from or proceeding to anothe
state, remains subject to the grant of the STATE
and former decisions establishing its validity
But in the existing posture OF this controversy
a conclusion so technical and summary woult
not be- sufficient: and 1 must examine thos
questions of the controversy, which, in its pre-
se.,t state, are really new and demand a ncy
decision.
Since the existing government of the unior
has been in operation, the greater part Gifts re
venue has been raised by duties on imports; ano
other portion OF its revenue has been raised b
duties on the tonnage Of vessels: and the law
OF the United States, have blended revenue
commerce aud navigation, very intimately wit
each other.
When revenue is raised from commerce, TIA
measure acting on the subject taxel, become
10 . greater or less extent, regulation OF cor