Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-11-03
Inspection Goois Transi:u
IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION.

whIch came before this court on appeal from =
Judgment OF a Justice Of the PeacH Of George
Town 10 the Circnit Court. by which court IL
was referred TO this court for hearing on the
hrst instant. The appeal is from he decision
OF magistrate of George town infiicting penalty
OF SlO for the violation of Corporation ord-
nance: THAT all anu every barrel ami half
barrel of -four manufactured within this town,
CT brought 10 the same for sale, Shipment,
q'ridti0n, shall be uhJeCt 10 the examination of
the inspector. by boring, searching, and tryI ng
d through &c. &c.
Inc facts, as settled by the parties, are as fol-
lows, to wit: The flour IN gu. stlon, which was
CLAIMED as the legal subject OF Inspection, was
man ufactured at Wev.rton, Maryland, by
George ii. Mcclure h Co. anu consigned to
John J. Marvin. New York city. The flour
was received by J Il. De vidson, as the agent of
the New York and Washington Steamship
Company. and forwarded b. him CT board the
steams hip valley CITY" TO John j. Marvin,
TO whom 1t was consigned. II WAS taken from
the canal boat, at the wharf OF George Waters,
IN Georgetown, D. G., ana nauied rom there
in drays a distance of u little over one square
to the wharf of said company, the said David
son paying canal freight ard crayage to their
wharf, and charging the same IN the Dill OF iai-
ing from GEORGETOWN to New York. While
the -four on the wharf OF the steamship
CON pany ]. ID. Robinson. the Inspector of flour
Tor Georgetown, II. O., demanded the right TO
inspect the same aud was notified by said John
Is. Davidson that il belonged % j. IL. Meixell
OF baltimore and was 10 be carried over ~
tC, and that he could not inspect the same. The
-four forwarded as per cou Igument above
without Inspection The said steamboat COM
pany is a common carrier from Georgetown to
New York and intermediate points.
Judge Carter. after reciting the above facts
said: s.FTom this statement of the fac.s of the
ca So, il appears that the Hour which Is made
the occasion Of this controversy owned by
CITIZEN of Maryland. and by him mapufac.
tured in the mills Of Naryland: that II
was exported from its place of manutscturs
MARYLAND nn1pr ultimate
New York; that it pursued its transit from
Washington county, Maryland. through the
highways and by The means chosen for Its
transportation, regularly and uninterrup,sdly
until it reached its destination. The first staGs
OF Its Journey was in 4 canal boat upon the
Chesapeake and Ohio canal to Georeetown:
then by drays over brief carriage throngh
Georgetown to the Steamship, which continuad
its transportation down the Potomac river
Chesapeake bag, and along the coast to New
York city.
In the light of these facts il is claimed NV tho
plaintiff that the shipment OF the -four into and
out of Georgetown brought 1t within the pro
visions of the ordinance providing for the in
spection OF flour within the city MAXIM ia
wilson, Who refused its inspection, answerabIs
TO the penalty of the ordinance If the cnnrt
are to regard the ordinance in the literal signi-
heatlon OF its language. uncontrolled by it's
proper object ard legal province, there vyouId
be an end OF the quiry, for the -four in con-
troyersy was literally shipped out OF the city
Of Georgetown
But is the term shipment entitled 10 a
literal Specification in connection with the sub.
ject under consideration, This question Is to
be answered under the light of the Ia W and ,he
facts. The city of Georgetown is n munici.
pality of limited authority. In the enactment
OF the ordinance IN question il exercised its
municipal legislative power: and. as we are
compelled 10 fer, for municipaI purposes u
legislated for the people. and with the iurisdic.
ton of GeOrsctown. The subject of lis legs.
lation in this respect has been uniformailv re.
garded by judicial authority rs the subject o.
munic pal power limited to the territory of
the municipality and the people within H. and
never suffered 10 have extra territorial elect
BY all he authOriies, II Is asserted that The
purpose and latitude OF inspection laws ara To
protect tie CitjNns of a State or mu.icinal'ry
III their credit as TO the quality Of the article
which ih"y may export. as the product of their
own Manufacture or prod nc ION. or 10 nrprart
the people % "A state or Municipality against .
position Ia the qu lily Of v hat NAV ne I'M .
ported and cons umed by The people o. IL
ate or municipality. The light 10 jnterpose
inspection laws J. in no reg. "a 4 riyFr 10 rS--
lai- commerce, bat igh- which r-latas a. t;,e
domestic economy and health of the people IL.
actry 1t, and not strangers undsr q different
govel rT1ent-a Z ght which ceases y-hac com
ineT>e r. moves The subject OF inspection from .
the jurisdiction Of tue power iyapc4in- Tho IN
peCtiOp; a GIN Which begins wron commerce
las terminated is Office in dsliverlag ne suL
1cCt of Inspect gu Nv TO tie uses Il the I,acrl.
ImI osIng the in-pec'lnr
IL We read TINS ordinance, therefore. in the
lEnt Of its sphere OF operation. the rational m
lei lt'a'lCn OF the term .'sl-0rnput' in i IS
81 Pm ent OF -four, that IN some t9run hal hon
identified with the Interest OF q :, -.,e,ovyu Tn.
i'ClF m LNF-t sustained no such
ret3 On TO GEORGETOWN o. its iuhlal-
fans. The wEr2f from -h.ll il va mIie
wa probt bly, grown IN Maryland. u Is ad-
mltt5O To have been rnlu H.dctuTet ana owned
ther" aId contracted 10 b. sold in the Cl,y Of
E"v G,TE. IT. only .Pia'iCr nat George
town q Its inhabitants u>,aiund 20 It was he
occurat'cn OF 4 +ew rods G. ground across he
highway OF - t-insii, situated q. to, had of
tIrewat.I navigation, and az III. foot OF ta.
ChtSap axe and ONO canal. The shipment in
THIS Insiaac", Therefore, VS. Ia 40 sense snip
melt 1rcrn Georgetown; bat . shInlne nj
through GeOrgel0TI. winch begun in Mar.
lard and terminated IN New York city.
u am compelled 10 these conclusions. not
vifLStanGIng the decision in the case OF the
Com mon wealth yS. King ct al, in the SuureIup
Court OF Pennsylvania"
After a review OF that case and another before
The Supreme Court of New York judge Carer
continued as follows:
A. l have already had occI= ION . remark.
the predicate Of authority for tha passage OF in
spection laws is that something j. about 10 be
exported from OF conSnmc "a III the Juris liCtIOu
where they operate. The Hour an question was
shipped in Maryland by a citizen Of Mary land
TO The city OF New York, and consigned to a
citizen Of New York. Il had no destination IL
GEORGETOWN, not dId its shipment contemplate
any transfer 10 n citizen OF GeoTEetoNn. The
on v office performed within GCOrgegoUn h.
any person CT Georgetown was the Office OF a
cannon carrier. The parties OF Maryland and
New York used tue dTays OF Georgeto En, and
perhaps, a citizen of Georgetown, TO transfer
the -four from the canal to the river under the
uIQuest.CnCd authority to the use of the high
way for that purpose. n The relations OF this
Hour to Georgetown, = toll-gate would be
much more pertinent mode ot taxation than an
inspection, If fLe authorities wished to lew
taxation upon mere handse liz transit.
by article first, section eight, of the Consti-
tuition, The power to regulate commerce among
the several States is given in express terms 10
Congress, and the States are expressly pro-
hibired from laying duties on imports, or ex-
n executing the inspection laws. This power.
thus given 10 Congress, is essentially and ne
cessarily an exclusive power, created, as we
learn from the FedeTGist, in a paper cOntrIbu-
ted by James Madison, to cure the evils which
experience had detected in the relation Of the
colonies under the articles OF contederation-a
power vested in Congress TO avoid the obstruc.
tlons to inter- State Commerce SO clearly eXem-
pliied in the case we have before us. To
assume that the case is under the operation Of
the ordinance Of the city OF Georgetown, and
that Georgetown had right and authority 10
create the ordinance, would be to assume that
the power vested by the Constitution in Con-
gress resides in the city Of Georgetown, with
the right to regulate the commercial relations
of Maryland and New York, TOR the effect of
the ordnance is to say that they shall Lot trade
with each other in flour, through the Chesa-
peake and Ohio canal and the Potomac river,
except upon the condition Of permitting the
levy Of an inspection duty.
"lf any one proposition was better settled
than any other by the people OF the United