The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-03-14
The Virginia Tax ON Northern Vessels
THE CASE OF BAKER va. WISE, GOVERNOR OF VII

The Virginia Tax ON Northern Vessels.
THE CASE OF BAKER va. WISE, GOVERNOR OF vIRr
GTNIA-sUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA,
| JANUARY TERM, 1860
IFrom The Boston Traveller, March l21
This case, which was argued last month At Richmond,
W. before the above court OF general interest the
whole coastng trade Of the State
It's suit to test the consiitrtonahty OF tho
state Of Virginia, levyng tax upon Northern vessels,
for the Of protecting the property Of
gems The circumstances Of the case sbliows:-
On the 18th Of March, 1885, the Legislature Of Virginia
passed an act providing for additional protection the
slave property OF citizens"
This act provides In substance
l. That all vessels, except government vessels bound
the waters Of the State shall be inspected for the pur
pose Of asceraDiDg fugitive slaves concealed on
board, and to pay hve dollars for such inspection.
1ha; all vessels owned in Virginia should be exempt
g. Every vessel departing from the waters Of vsr-
sips without certificate Of inspection, shall forfeit five
hundred dollars; and during the sut for this penalty
bond Is not given, the vessel il forfeited
T. The pilots OF The State the inspectors who are 70
search the weasel and give the certificate
g. vessel returns 10 the swaters Of the State from
any cause, she must pay the inspection fee sgan before
Weather; in which case also It must DO paid il there -
| any intercourse with the shore.
O. The fines levied under this law appropriated 10
the enforcement OF the Fugitive Slave law being required
10 be paid into The State Teasuary AMI to DO used
payment Of rewards for the apprehension Of fugitive
Baker, the plaintiff the quit, is resident Of Var
mouth, Mass. eDd in August, 1866 was captain OF
coastnR vessel in the fruit trade between Norfolk, Va
ana New York and Boston Having taken board his
cargo at Norfolk he eftthe wharf kept under easy
sail while running down to The Capes Charles and Henry
about fifteen miles, IN order that the pilots might board
him from their boats as rs their practce and "inspec
and hsvps he month no U a
bis cargo being Of very pershabe kind he resolved
wait DO longer az the wind fair, went
without Ds pection. He had fugtves board. On
returning 10 Norfolk about month after, his vessel
at ohce eezed for this compliance with the Ba
ker tried In vain 10 end officer he could
his trial; but none could be found
SION was to for three months The vessel was in
consequence chained to the wharf till the in
In November, and no; being ooppered, injured by
the worms that she sold under the decree the CIR
Gait Court Of Norfolk (Which condemned her in November
1867 for $3.50, her value being before SEIZURE 600
The $3.50 barely paid The Hne and From this De.
Court Of Appeals (,he Supreme Court Of the Sta e)
snd after being on the docket three years, the
was finally reached for argument on the 9Th Of
February last Questions Of Law only heard in this
Court The general questions raised IN this
N number FIRST, whether the law in conflict with
the constitution of the United Staes and second whether
was nIcophict with the constitution Of Virginia The
Court sat at Richmcnd and consisted Of JUDGES Allen
DANIEL, Lee, Monceonr and Robinson.
The discussed by very great length
and excited much interest No report Of the areu-
bp DC % I'm, ,ss he a
was in violation OF the bill Of rights Of the constitution Of
Virginia. eection 10, nasmuch authorizes
fact commtsed and gives to the pilots Of Virginia. who
are inspectors BY be act rowing commission TO search
Hlze WnOut oatn or Warrant, or preliminary
ceedngs Of any kind Whatever the effects and property
OF citizens; and moreover Asten upon them the suspicion
Of crime and subject them 10 arrest and their property
contscaton was maintained that the act in con-
ct with the constitution Of the United States, because
we regulation Of commerce, and that Congress has
cluave power to regulate commerce "anong the several
States, and that law Of this kind h mere poce
regulation such AZ b conceded States may make which
Affect only their informal and municipal concerns;
that this law was regulation OF commerce, such
a. "a contemplated by the constitution; that the
NV NV. gives =, preference 70 The ports q VIZ
ton Of section Of article Of the constitution OF the
United States; that violates TIE privileges and imuni-
hesof citizens Of the several States 10 other States
rery 70 article H. 0f sscOu >; thai II Us ulnspec-
unreasonable searches and seizures Of the effects peo
pe aeainAt article or the amendments 10 the consttu-
ton further claimed that the vessel con6scated
In this enrolled and licensed for coastnR
trade under The laws Of the United States could not
be taxed impeded by State laws In the prosecution Of
her voyages in the waters Of the United states and
finally that States have right 70 tax the Of
the United States for the benefit Of State institutions or the
State Teasuryc fines IN this going into fund
the arrest Of fugitive slaves. The quescn Of the powers
elected mnch discussion, which took political
aspecthe Attorney General contenting for the
State rights doctrine and the Massachusetts counsel
claiming exclusive power In the federal government in the
regulation Of conmercen which the history OF the con-
sttion and the contemporanoous exposuons much
considered.
The Attorney Generals positions were that was DO.
lice regulation Virginia. such a. she had right to
make, and that States have concurrent powers 70 soma
extent with Congress In the matter Of commerce.
The arguments occupied from the Sth 18th OF
February The decision Of the Court cannot be expected
before Nay and viii be looked with much inieress
adverse 70 Baker, the win be carried 10 the Su
preme Court Of the United Sates