The Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1818-1824, 1824-06-29

=
partly n different states. this proposition wonld
also have decided that cause bui this PROPOSE
ton has not been announced, while the right 10
navigate from one state 70 another, has been
distinctly adjudged. Il y not supposed. that the
supreme Court intended 20 adiudge the grant Of
this state Ruli, 20 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 rs decision, should BE- dis
joined from the facts before II, and the question
which Il i bound ID decide. An exposition 81
the reas0nsspf a court ~ justly referred u tie
case before i lis arguments and all us expires
sions, are considered as used il application %
the facts OF the case, and 70 some ultimate prop
osition which the court plainly afirms, or ex-
pressly denies.
The decree and the opinion of the Supreme
Court then determine, that the grant Of this state
10 Livingston and Fulton, is invalid, in respect
to navigation between this state and any other
state, by vessels licensed for the coasting trade
This seems 20 me 10 be the result Of Oh the
views Of that court the only conclusion which
i int nded 20 deduCe from az Its arguments and
Illustrations.
The grant 10 Livingston and Fulton having
been adjudged valid in its full extent, BY the
highest tribunal Of this state and being now
this state aud any other might briefly de-
clare, that navigation within the state, by steam
vessels not arriving from or proceeding to a.
mother state, remains subject to the grant Of the
state and former decisions establishing its validi-
ty But 10 the existing posture Of this contro-
versy, conclusion 50 technical and summary
would not be sufficient and ! must examine
those questions OF the controversy, which, il lis
present state, are really new and demand new
decision"
Here follows discussion 10 the extent OF
several columns which we omit. The points de-
cided will be understood from what fOllOws1
" Navigation between this state and any 9TH
er, by steam vessels licensed for the coasting
trade, having been adjudged right and navi-
CATION by steam vessels merely from one place
to another within this state, being still subject 10
the state grant; both these rights must have ef-
feet, so far as they are compatible with each
other. When these rights really interfere, the
right granted by the state must yield, and the
right to navigate between any post in the state,
must prevail
A steam vessel having license, and entering
this state from another, may proceed TO any port
IN this state /; and such a vessel may depart
from any port in this state, and proceed to a.
mother state. In either case the vessel may
touch al any intermediate place within the state.
the supreme court, or follow as direct conse-
quences from the principle of its decision.
The navigation which remains subject TO the
state grant, is that which takes place between
any two points in this state, where the voyage is
not continuation of passage to or from anOth-
er state Such voyage is equally subject TO the
right granted BY the state, whether il is between
two places in the same revenue district, or be-
tween places in the same revenue districts with
IN the state. This right is not affected BY the
limits Of revenue districts, or the obligations Of
masters OF vessels in respect to manHests, oaths,
reports and permits, in different cases All those
regulations of the cGasting trade, have their due
effect bat they do not vary the right to navi-
gate from place to place.-This question has no
concern with ports of entry or ports of delive-
~ il having no connection with foreign CON-
merce, or with the entry or delivery OF foreign
merchandise upon its arrival in the United
States.
Thus, the points at which voyage common
ces and terminates, seem to ne TO determine
whether the voyage is protected BY the license,
or is subject to the state grant: and | do not
perceive, that these rights can be reconciled in
practice, by any other discrimination. steam
vessel having license. and proceeding from
port in this state, may indeed, by touching at a
port in an adjoining state, continue the voyage
that such a navigation between two ports in the
state, would be an evasion Of the state grant
But the intention with which vessel may be
navlgated 10 another state, cannot, think, repel
or destroy the right, which the same vessel now
has, TO proceed from another state to any other
port in this state The right to navigate to or
from another state, is now, an established and
absolute right, Notwithstanding the state grant !;
and this absolute right may, conceive, be ex-
ercised for the purpose of continuing voyage
made from or to another state, to any other port
in this state
The particular case now before the court, Is
voyage made by the Olive Branch from the CT
.ty of New York to the city Of Albany On the
part OF the defendant, II is shown, that two box
OF merchandise intended to be transported to
the cities Of Jersey and Albany, were taken on
board Of the Olive Branch at the CITY of New
York ; that the vessel having also passeug gers,
proceeded first from the city of New York to
the city OF Jersey on the western shore of the
Hudson; that some passengers were there Ian
ded, the vessel being then fastened to a wharf
at that place and that the vessel proceeded
thence to Albany. The whole Hudson being in
this state, il is insisted By the compliments
that the Give Branch, while at the city Of Jer-
sey, still within this state, and that the com
munication which took place at the city Of Jer-
sey, was not voyage 10 or from the state Of New
Jersey. The Olive Branch was not in New Jer-
sey, but approached the line Of the two states
as nearly As such vessel could approach ; and
did so for the purpose Cf al intercourse with
New Jersey, wnich actually took place. As il
was impossible that this vessel should there pass
BY navigation, from this state Tito New Jersey
and as an actual intercourse with that state took
place, in the only manner i'll which intercourse
between the two states BY navigation j. there
practicable this seems to be A case Of nayi-
CATION from state 70 state, according to the sense
and spirit Of that decision, which has determin-
ed that license for the coastng trade, confers
right 10 navigate from one state 10 another
Upon these facts an injunction is denied.