The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-11-29

Its object manifestly was 20 give the app
liant the exclusive right of keeping pub
ferry across the river aud Ia receive the to
for transportation. The language Of d
third section is that mo pcrsan, except Il
Railroad, shall be permitted TO transport al
perssn, animal or property" &c. Aud TIA
language must be taken with reference
the object the Legislature had in vie1
which was TO secure TO the appellant the e.
elusive right of keeping ferry for tran
pOrtatiou, and TO prohibit all persons froI
interfering with that right, b. leepiRg a fl
~. or engaging IL tho bAsi6ees Of transp0rtin
persons. animals or goods. IL was ne
within the power OF the Legislature TO dc
prive an individual of the right to take him
q self or his personal property in his own yes
sci, or IN that of another whether used fol-
public or private business provided sueh
boat was not kept and used for the purpose
of ferry boat. And general words in the
| act should not he Sc construed as to give an
effect TO it beyond the Legislative power,
and thereby render the act unconstitutional
| But, II possible, construction should be
/ given TO il that viii render ii free from con
! stitutional objections, and the presumption
must be that the Legislature intended To
grant such rights as were legitimately
within its power.
But if the view OF the act taken ia behalf
OF the appellee We're correct, it would be of
no avail to him IN this ease. 1t would only
show that the act is Unconstitutional, so far
as it prohibits private individuals from
taking themselves or their property across
the riverin their own boats, or in the boats
of others, not IlaEa as Gerry boats But that
would NOT reader iknllk ntitutional on the
ground under s6onsidtfat5onsS as 10 persons
Keeping asd asias4es 4gfy bout in violation of
fpshr 81
that i fhg e. sf 1 5et%eem tb Sns
parties.
The grant to til AAppellant does not inter-
fere with any right intended to be guaran.
teed 20 the citizen by the act of Congress re-
terred to. In securing that right it never
eould have been intended TO interfere with
any of the rights and established usages of
the States, whose territory lay contiguous
to the river, or rs impairing the rights of in
liyiduals granted by the States in further
lnee af the great objects of trade and inter
course between the States The object of
he guaranty was that no obstruction should
'ver be made to navigation on the river, and
hat 1t should be free to all the citizens of
he United Sts5es, and not to those ON its
'orders only, as a great navigable stream, I
or the ordinary purposes ofnavigation and I
rade. But it was never intended to inter- {
ere with the rights of travel and inter- n
between the States bordering |
n it, nor with the customary Ia G
Titles Necessary to that end When
he act was passed, there must A
ave been ferries at numerous points I
II the whole length of the river which We're +
lghly useful, if not absolutely necessary, as ii
ne media of commerce and intercourse be- n
yeen the States and it is manifest that il
cans SO necessary to the public conve-
ence were never intended to be affected by ii
Ie act OF Congress, and that the right guar If
lteed by the act was to be in subortliuation | a,
the public good and the great right of st
ayel and Accommodation so carefully M
cured in the Constitution Accordingly. II
has been held by the Supreme Court ofthe in
lited States, that neither the guaranty of ri,
g free navigation of the Mississippi river ba
7 any right supposed to arise from the ex. ca
Else of the commercial power of Congress, nj,
ierieres with the police power of the IA
ites in granting ferry licences. Tanning IN
Gregoire, l6 How 534 orr
!. We proceed to consider the second dues- 0f
n, whether the grant to the appellant is in,
interference with "the power to regulate no
nmerce among the States" delegated to
ngress by the Constitution of
he act of the Legislature grants the eS- IN,
sive privilege of keeping and maintain bet
ferry across the Mississippi River, for Sta
VI SUCH persons and
veable property as may be for transport tba
ion, to a point ON the Louisiana shore, inn
'osite the city of Vicksbnrg; which right VIII
0 cover the banks of the river for dis ly.
&c ON each side of that city, up and down We
river, OF four miles and prohibits any gro
or person from keeping a ferry within II
specified limits. ia +,
is to be observed, that the space of four T
IS on each side Of the city of Vicksburp CON
md down the river, is merely the limit Err
he franchise granted to the appellant. Cha
lin which all other ferries are prohibited. us.
grant of the franchise, of course cannot Yorl
ate TO deprive the RIPARIAN propretors, $50
rat space, of their property in the soil side
the privilege granted can only be exer. as a
| by the appellants using his own soil, that
in that space for the landing of his boat brac
he lands of such other persons as may Of {
ent to there use by him Nor can the it is
chise be so used as to impair the rights case
n the appellee has, under his license lang
the United States, to navigate the Mis- "T
lpl River to land his boat at any point regu
lie river, not in violation of the regula- stan,
of the city or town, or of the rights of NAV
eparian proprietor, where the landing the
take place, or to carry persons or prop tabli
70 any pace anthorlzed by his license in a.
% enjoy fully his right to carry on the not
ing trade under his license provided ries
res not use his boat as ferry boat, other
IN the limits of the appellants franchise. be. q
to the extent of the territory covered these
he grant, the prOpriety of that is a Cong
n depending on the circumstances of claim
use and as no evidence of wrong or has !
ssion, by reason Of that is here shown. State
st be presumed that the Legislature and g
the grant to the extent it did, for good Tn,
efficient reasons. Ubfcl
his grant, then, usurpation Of the COnw
: belonging to Congress, to regulate Of tn
erce among the States sustai
rue that ferries whether confined TO the of til
Of a SINGLE State OF extending across Ii +
from one State to another. NAV he cree d
connected with commerce verse,
en- the States, as the mode of convey proce'
by which trade and intercourse are
d on between them. But it by no
follows, that they are embraced in
'wer delegated to Congress to regulate Won
cree among the States, aud that they
blect to the regulation of the Federal cIach
nment They are, from their nature. merrl
Is Of internal police of the State. es- dull,
TO her domestic interests. and must / A. :,
arily be under the power of the State.
IDS Of public commerce intended to be sesse'
we'd by such franchises cannot be at she Is
without regulations Of law for the bell v
y r ana sinele9t performances Of the little
OF such regulations depends greatly ee0''
Il circumstances governing each cas-. crack
ate Legislature, or tribunals author over
I 1t, are manifestly the proper deposi- Geb II
that mower Hence II i r-alI sa5ts..I - -