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

at 10 Congress and consequently they rems
subject 10 State Legislation"
% IL Is insisted, by counsel for the appell
d. that this statement is obiiSr and not
- authority. But, without going into a minu
Z examination of the case TO show that ii
Il is founded in error il is sufficient 20 "a
&c that the same principle has been frequent
Is affirmed by the same court in subsequel
e cases, and that the decision is held as autho
g itative on the point, by several of the mo-
enlightened ofthe State courts.
> In Tanning VS.. Gregoire, above cited III
same court says: THE argument that IN
, free navigation of the Mississippi River
= guaranteed by the ordinance of 1857 !" (whic
: is the same in substance as the act of Cor
gress in relation TO this State)-"or an,
right which may be supposed to arise iron
the exercise of the commercial power o
Congress, does not apply in this case. Meth
er of these interfere with the police power
of the State, in granting ferry license
In Cooley VS.. Board Of Wardens Of Phila.
delphia, II How, 320, the same court SAYS
THE mere grant TO Congress of the power tn
| regulate commerce, did not deprive the
States off the power TO regulate pilots" Aud
| that the power is entirely analogous to that
| in relation 20 ferries, so far as each case NAV
| be affected by the provisions of the consti.
tuition of the United States
In the case of city of New York VS. Miller,
III, Peters l4l, the same court distinctly re-
eognises the principles stated by Chief JUS
tice Marshall and in the very lucid opinion
Of the court, the doctrine upon the subject
is thus stated; "That all those powers which
relate to merely municipal legislation, or
what may, perhaps more properly be called
internal policy, are not thus surrendered or
restrained and that, consequently, in rela- |
tion TO these the authority of State is
complete, unqualified and exclusive
The case of Conway ct al VS. Taylor's |
EN'crs., Black Sup. Court U. S COB, bears |
all the leading features of this case, and is
decisive of it.
James Taylor the RIPARIAN proprietor of
the ground fronting on the Ohio river at the
city of Newport, obtained from the proper
court in Kentucky, license to keep and run
a ferry from that town across the Ohio river.
After he had been in the use and enjoyment
d that franchise for many years Conway
and Others formed a company, built a steam
n to run rs a ferry boat to aud from Cinciu-
lati aud Newport and rented part of the
liver front of the city of Newport from the
corporate authorities, and had the boat en-.
oiled in the custom house of the United
states, obtained license to run her in the !
oasting trade, and commenced running her [
5 ferry boat between the points stated. 5
'aylor filed his bill in equity euioining the /
unning of the boat as Il terry boat. and d
he case was finally decided in the Court of a
ppeals OF Kentucky perpetually enioining d
onway " Co, from running their boat as n
ferry boat from Newport across the river. ID
eeause it was an infringement of the fran. 81
Use of Taylor. 81
In rendering the decision, the Court of q
ppea.s of Kentucky deliberately examines n
he objection now under consderation--that 81
IA NH nfF T. los, a
e power of Congress to regulate commerce ia
nong the States and decides that the OBJ te
elton could not be sustained.
From that decree, an appeal was taken to 70
c Supreme Court of the United States, and di
was there affirmed The Court in deliv- as
ing its opinion quoted the extract above ba
lted from the opinion of Chief Justice est
lrshall in Gibbons VS.. Ogden. ana adopted h.
with emphasis rs applicable to ferries. shy. an
: that that proposition had not been ques- FL,
ned in any subsequent adjudication. but ~
4 been repeatedly affirmed both in that soi
urt and ia the State Courts. The court ha
o adopt the extract above quoted from no,
ming vs. Gregoire; and after holding an,
It there was nothing in the franchise In
nted, infringing the commercial powers :
ihe United States, and nothing transcend Ioa,
the Legitimate exercise of the legislative nc
yer of the State concludes as follows: nro
There has been now nearly three quarters aail
A century of practical Interpretation of and
Constitution. During all that time, as ina,
Ife the Constitution had its birth, the "a
ties have exercised the power to establish mi,
Iesuiaue ieiIies, IoligIess never mat full
'uuhoiiU9 NO "iVhih ,no sooPe Vi lhhJ the
lense mass" of undelegated powers, said
ch are reserved TO the States respective 90
we think too clear to admit Of doubt. mo
place our Judgment wholly on that bala
md" 60
; tui'ioi "u'hoi ~ "cie icl"ifed' u est,
10 same principles are held in a well he a.
idered and lucid opinion of the Court of for !
rs and Appeals of New Jersey in the 81
zen Freeholders VS. The State 4Zabrisk, said
and by the Supreme Court of New e,at
, in the People VS.. Babcock, II Wend, ~,
In both of these cases, the courts con- AR
the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall
'Ove quoted, decisive of the question, CHA
the power over ferries was not en- III
ID IN the provision of the Constitution ~
he United States here relied on. and that w
to the States and in the latter ~,
Nelson, j., uses the following forcible WI
lage: eoIp'
! -.,.....-, der {
10 oilee . PoMeI Oh congress TO eOnst
ave commerce WIN foreign nations on Il
? upo, euo oai'o looOiig as that Whicn river
tate has not reserved the right to es- resa,,
h and regulate ferries upon the waters donh,
estiOn within her limits then she has strnct
- Ilsnt 70. cstaonsh ana regulate Ter valid
ipoh the waters separating her rom Tn eI
States, and the consequences would r.
at no public ferries could exist in all yesent
cases unless under the authority Of Coyoy
esS' 9ueh power mas never been is her
I'd by Congress; aud on the contrary it road {
ways been exercised by the several In ,V;,
J, between which ferry is practicable prese,
'nvenient." preI,,.
Sc adiudications with many more rendei
might be cited, and especially that Of oftbe
ny VS.. Taylor appear to be conclusive the la
question under consideration and TO 10 i'm,
d the constitutionality Of the franchise lions
appellant beyond doubt. a,ons
flows from these views that the de And II
ssolving the injunction must be re- adont,
and the cause remanded for further4 Thai 4
dings. "a a. I
py Tor