The national Republican., 1867-12-06
THE COURTS.
SUPREME CorHr OF rnE UNITED STATES;

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATEs
On motion Of Hon. Reysray JOSnsoS aeo
Chamberlain, ESQ.,, Of Denver, Colorado, was ad-
mitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor
On motion Of Mr., Attorney General stanbery
Hon. Richard p. HHtrard, Of Connecticut, was
admitted to practice as an attorney and counsel.
No. o. Henry NJ. Rector, plaintiff in eff6I "a,
Chester Ashley's executors. The argument Of
Of counsel for he pisintiff in error on the ques.
tion Of lurisdiction, and BY MT. Jos II Bradley,
sr, on the merits, continued BY MT Martin and
and by Mr. Bradley, srg for the plaintiff In error;
d. Adjourned until Tomorrow morning at II
The Souiaerr ssdma1ip Company Of Eey dheans,
p,ainfiIr IN error u.s. me Matters and Wdrdens Of ne
Pori oS Ncp Orleans. These afo several cases
which, presenting the same issues, arc CONSOLE
On tHeiSth Of March, 1855, the Legislature Of
Louisiana passed law providing that, In addi-
tion to the fees allowed 70 the masters and ward
ior each vessel arriving a the port q New
Orleans from sea the sum OF five dollars, whether
they H called S 10
SeI and il case Of failure or refusal to Pay such
sum, they shall have the right to proceed for the
Justice OF the peace or other competent tribunal
The only question which arises IN this case 10
whstfO, ths lay conflicts with the OonstrGtoIi art ni
the State held that It did not, and the plaintiff
in error contends that II violates Tic eiehth and
ninth sections of the first article Of the Cohsti-
tuition, the first Of which provides that Congress
shall have power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several Statesi
and with the Indian tribes and the second
that no slate shall, without the consent OF the
Congress, lay any iIHports 9r duties on imports
sary for executing Its, inspection laws, and the
net proceeds Of all duties and imports laid by
any State on iniportsor exports shall be for the
use OF the treasury Of the rnited states, and all
and control OF Congress. No State shall, With
out the consent Of Congress, lay any duty on
tonnage, keep troops or ships-of-war In time oi
peace, enter into any agreement or compact with
in war, unless actually invaded, or In such immi-
ncnt danger as will not admit OF delay.n
The defendants In error urged that the act OF
1885 cannot be considered regulation OF COM
port OF New Orleans, and belongs to that class
Of laws which the States have an unquestion-
able right TO enact, such as inspection, quaran-
tine, and health laws, and those regulating their
to the port wardens cannot be viewed as duty
or lmpost on imports or exports. 1t is clear that
the fec of Ave dollars Is to be paid to the wardens
for the same reason halfpilotage is to be paid to
though they are not accepted. 1t has always
been held that this provision OF the pilotage law
IL constitutional. The office OF port warden Ia
just as Indispensable for the purposes OF naviga.
tion and commerce as the office and functions OF
pilot This question, II Is contendcd, Is fully de-
cided In Cooley VS.. Board Of Wardens, IL How,
200. The Louisiana pilotnge act OF 1851 shows In
several of Its sections the important duties I'M
posed upon the defendants in error In connection
with the pilotagc system, and for which no spe-
cifc compensation is made
5. N. solomon for plaintiffs in error Thos. j.
Durant for defendants In error.