Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-05-01
,.-. .na m,r;ra- md less embar.

deed, Is lar less burinensotne auu oS
interruption 10 commerce, thah 'ae u'u'' -.
antine regulations. And CANNOT sec upoh va
ground II can be supposed That Inc con''''u',p"
Of TIE United States permits a ela.e " uso '.,'
ancien; means Of guarding the heai'h o' 10 -.
liens and at the same time denies W '"o
power Of mitigating It's hardships, anu VI a'ap
ting It's sanitary regulations 10 Inc eAlenueu an.
incessant intercourse with foreign nations' anu
to the enlightened philanthropy oil mouelh ''n.e''
nor why the State should be denied .he P'''.
lege Of providing for The sick anu sunef'"e ="
shore, Instead Of leaving them TO Peris" o'' sup
board. Quarantine regulations are no' sPesn,
and unallerable powers IN Siale-lheJ a.. ou
the means of executing power anu cei.''n.
ly other and better means may oe auop
place Of them, if they are not Prohioi'eu y .'e
Constitution OF the United States. Ana II lhe
old mode is constitutional, the one adopted oy
the law of New York must be equally Tree from
objection. Indeed. The case Of The City OF New
Ynrk y. Milne. so often referred 10 in The ar
yument. ought. in my judgment, TO decide this
II seems 10 me that The present case IS entirety
within III. principles there ruled by The court
mad no, ,.,eGt,ed 10 say anything iuuher IN
r.latiuu ~ ms cas-. ui Ne" York vs.. Mime DGt
M, remarks ~ one ui uy brethren has fenlrItd
II necessary H.: nc 10 speak OF u LiUIe fa;iicn-
lady. since | nave fc;erred 10 II rs the ceiinefa'"
Judgment 81 ms court II V eleven years since
that decision Wa pronounced. Alter nal idpse
ut lIme | am s~Lsh that ought Los ~ uiue!.
take 10 s:aic every nlng that passed IN conference
ar in nriyat- conversations, because | may be
mistaken in some particulars, although my IN
pfe>s,ons are strong that all The circumstances
are yel III my memory. And AIN thr less as
pused 10 enter upoi such statement, because, lh
ny Judgment IL judicial anthony on9hi hut 20
r.st on s.nY .Lch circumstances, depending on m
GivlGual rne niuiy. The couit, al Thai TIME con-
sisted 81 seven manifestation Q: Them are dead;
AM nmung tIeu he enIhen Iur,st VINO DELIVERED
m, opinion u The Couu. All OF The seven Judges
were present and pafluok IN the deilbeiati"ns
wnich preceded The decision Tn opinion must
have been read in conference, and assen'ea " u
acquIe>,ei in by inaJniiiy Of the Cou!i pre-
c,st " ;.> il .,oud, o:rei wise It c,uic not nave
been delivered as he Couit'> opinion. Il was de
livercd com he bench, in open court as usual !
aud on'y one II the seven Judges, M. JUS icr
Story, ,is.eu,sd Mr.. Justice fhompson deliver
81 ms own opinion, which concuficd IN ne upIt-
ION of The Conrl, but which, a, The same time
aided another ground, which the Coufi declined
taking and determined TO leave open. rms VIII
- e b. referring Ia the opinons. And u AZ
opinion mus Irtpare: and delivered and pronul-
gated 10 Ne ffic,a report may nov be pu, ASIDE
OF the elounu nat il Ind not express what a mai
time was The oplhIon ~ the majority OF thr
Cuur | 10 not see hoT Inc decisions, wlen
announced by single Judge, (as IS u'ua ~hen
he na ,rcy concur,) can hereafter command the
public confidence. What is said 10 have hap
pened III ih,s case may, Tor aush we know, nave
happened 10 others. In Gliilrans Us. Ogden, itr
example, o. Blown vs. the STATE OF Maryland,
which have been 30 uileu referred 10.
The question which the Conrt determined to
leave open war whether regulations al com
merce, as such, by STATE within lis own tciti-
tories, prohibited ~ the grant q The power
10 Congress. This appears N The opinion II
self ana the aw Of New York was malnaincd
on what was called the police power oil The Stale
ought 10 add, as Mr.. Justice BALDWIN has been
particularly referred 10, that The court adjourned
on the cav he opinion was delivered, ana on tht
next day ne called on me and said there was a
sentence, OF a paragraph, | do not remembet
which, that mad escaped his attention, aud win
! which he was dissatisfied Ind wished altered
| Or course nothing could be done, as he coufI
had separated, and Mr.. Justice Barbour, AS well
as DINERS had left town. Mr. Justice Barbour
and Mr.. Justice BALDWIN were both presen; al
| the next term, and for several terms after, but
never heard any further dissatisfaction express
ed with the opinion by Mr.. Justice Baldwin, and
never al any time, until this law came before ",
| heard any IRON any other member Of the couf,
VINO had assened 10 the opinion, nor any propo
silloD 10 correct il. have no reason 10 suppose
mat Mr.. Justice Barbour ever heard III his lie
time that The accuracy Of his opinion mad been
questioned, o; that any alteration had been de-
sired in il; and | have The strongest reason {
suppose that Mr.. Justice Baldwin had become
satisfied because, IN MS opinion in Graves y.
Siaueh CT, he quotes The case OF New York vs.
Miiae with appreciation, when speaking 10 that
! case ii the difference between commercial anG
p,.ice power. The Passage il in Is Pet Sill.
where i.c uses the following language: "The
opinion OF this court, in The case Of Mine VS..
New York, IL Pet, 100, &c, draws he true line
between the two classes o. regulations, and gives
All easy solution TO any doubt which may ari>e
on The clause al The constitution OF Mississippi
whioh has been under consideration. lquo!e his
words as Jud,cay spoken, and forming part Of
the official report.
have deemed il my cuiy 10 say his much
as am one al the three surviving ~ g-s WI
sa, in that case My silence would justly have
created he peiet that | concuned in the stale
menl which has been male in relation 10 the case
ul when am speaking. But DO not concur
nv recuIec,ions on the contrary, differ from II
in several PARTICULARS But il would be out q
place 10 enter on such discussion here. All
desire 10 say IS that know nothing that IN NV
judgment, ought 10 deprive the case u Ne"
York and Milne OF It's full dicial weight as |,
sta nds in the official Ieporl. Mr. justice Bar
bour delivered tie opinion; Mr. Justice Ihomp
sons opinion maintains IN The main, The same
pr,ncnes; Mr.. Justice Baldwin, tour years al
erwaris, quoted il with appreciation, and ceF-
tdiny asseuIed 10 II; making majority oil the
| whul' coun. ] speak Of he opinion OF my d.
c,a.ed brethren, ifun their pnoic acts. VI 'ae
| opinions oi hose VINO 81 BESIDE me | have no
ignt 10 speak because they are yel mere an
| have spoken Tor themselves Bu! II j, cue 70 M
| sci % "A n; certainty n ~ time the opinion
| was delivered, | :.dd 10 reason 10 suppose ha
| they did not both fully concur in the reasoning
| and principles as well as in The judgment.
And the decision now made IS 10 come II
| conflict with the primo piles maintaintd 10 tha
case those who follow US in these seals mus
n-aeailer decide between the two cases, and &C.
terniue which OF them best accord> with III
rue construction OF The constitution, and oush
therefore To sand. The Law now in question
like the law IN the case Of New York vs. Mi
NJ in all of It's SUBSTANTIAL ohJecrs and provis
is IN STREET ana,sy 10 lie ordinary Guaran
me regulations IN relation 10 ships with careoc'
nom places supposed 10 be dangerous; al lea>
as much 81 as The IA ure Of The danger brouef
~ passenger sAip, and the means necessary Il
suaid a2a,nsl II, w,ii permit
Blu. Il mis- law \ hr d IL be invalid, either he
cause IL IS feguat..n 81 commerce. or becd Yet
Ii was IN 60. d g win tie law IT Congress. IL
what muce can he Sia'e plutect iisei2 How
can II prov,dc against he danger q pestienc.
and pauperlsn rom passenger ships2 Ii is ad
n,tteu mai il i,a> 'i.h 10 do 50: .aal want anc
disease ate not me sutl-c's 81 commerce and nu
wihia the poNci granitd 10 Congress. 1'hcs u
| NJ, OBEY IS laws. Yet il Ire Stale has the right
| mere mus: b. a remedy IN some form or oiher i;
| is OWL hands, - iGc IS III he case ii stip,
with catsoe>. In. : ate can scarcely b. require,
| u take upon rstli AID im.ose upon the md rs
try u us ci,izehs inc duty Il Supporting the i'm
| men>c mass II povrr,y and relpIessGcss which y
| NV pressing 50 rcavliy upon property in Eu
rope, and which II is endeavorins 10 throw ch :
4 Il cannol be expected that II should lake uroi
| itself me burden OF providing buildings, grounds
| iuua and AL me necessary com.utts Tor The mnt
tiiuGe 81 helpless and poor passense 8 who Al,
| dally arriving tom foreign ports Neihet pre-