The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-05-24
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of

EkROR, vs. THE MASTERS AND WARDERS OF THE
PORT OF NEW ORLEANS.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion Of
the court:
This case comes before US by writ of error to
| to the Supreme Court Of the State Of Louisiana.
law of that State enacted on the 18th of
| March, 1866, provided that the master and war.
| dens of the port of New Orleans shall be entitled
10 demand and receive, in addition to other fees
| the sum of S., whether called on to perform any
service or not, for every vessel arriving in that
port.
Under this act the sum of S. was demanded of
the steamship Charles Morgan, belonging to the
| plaintiff in error and payment being refused. suit
was brought against the owner and judgment re.
| covered in Justices court, which Judgment was
| subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of
the State The object of the suit in error is to re-
verse that judgment.
The question presented by the record therefore.
is this: Is the act Of the legislature of Louisiana
repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States!
That the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the States is vested in
Congress, and that no State without the consent of
Congress can lay any duties or imposts on i'm.
ports or exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing its inspection laws or
any duty or tonnage, familiar provisions OF
the Constitution which have been frequently and
thoroughly examined in former judgments of
this court.
The power TO regulate commerce was given to
Congress in comprehensive terms, and with the
single exception of the power to levy duties on
exports. And it was thus given, so far as it re.
lates to commerce between the States, with the
obvious intent to place that commerce beyond in
terruption or embarrassment, arising from the
conflicting of hostile State regulations.
At the same time it was not intended 10 inter-
fere with the exercise of State authorities upon
subjects properly within State Jurisdiction. The
power to enact inspection laws is expressly re
cognized as not affected by the grant of power
to regulate commerce. And many other powers,
the exercise of which may, in various degrees,
affect commerce. have always been held not to
be within the grant to Congress To this class be-
long quarantine and other health laws laws con-
corning the domestic police. and laws regulating
the internal trade of State.
There are other cases in which, either BY ex.
press provision or by omission to exercise its own
powers, Congress has left to the regulation of
States matters clearly within its commercial pow.
ers. OF this description were the pilot laws. rec.
ognized as valid by the act of 1888 10, S, St. SAY
and 1887, Us U. s. ST., 1881
That the act OF the legislature of Louisiana is a
regulation OF commerce can hardly be doubted.
II imposes tax upon every ship entering the port
of New Orleans, to be collected upon every entry
In the case Of steamer plying between that port
and ports in adjoining States Of Alabama or Tex
as, it becomes serious burden, and works the
very mischief which the Constitution intended TO
protect commerce among the States.
1t is claimed, however, that the tax is for COM
pensation to the master and wardens, whose duty
1t is TO perform, when called upon the various ser.
vices required OF port wardens, and that the law
for its collection stands therefore on the same
constitutional grounds as the State law authorizing
the collection of potage.
But there are two answers 10 this proposition.
The first is that no act Of Congress recognizes
such laws as that of Louisiana as proper and ben
efcial regulations, while the State laws in respect
20 pilotsge are thus recognized.
The second is that the right to recover piotage
and half pilotage, as prescribed By State legsla-
ton. rests. not only on State laws, but upon con-
frart pilOtana Ne tfnu Co..
which the pilot has put himself in readiness to
perform, by labor, risk and cost, and which he has
actually offered to perform. steamship Company
vs.. Jolifie, 2 Wall. 450.) But in the case before
US there were no services, and no offer to perform
any. The State law is express. II subjects the
vessel to the demand Of the master and wardens,
whether they be called on to perform any ser.
Of men is beneficial to commerce. but the same IS
true Of the government of the State, of the city
government, OF the courts, of the whole body of
public functionaries. II the constitutiorality of
the charge for the benefit Of the master and war.
dens can be maintained upon the ground that il
secures compensation for services 10 is dificut TO
perceive upon what grounds the constitutiOnality
Of any State law imposing taxes for tie benefit Of
the State government upon vessels landing in its
ports, can be questioned.
We think it quite clear therefore, that the regu.
lation OF commerce, made by the act before u.s.
comes within none Of the limitations or excep.
III,
the regulation Of commerce among the States is in
Congress.
We think, also, that the tax imposed by the
legislature Of Louisiana is in the fair sense Of the
word, q duty on tonnage. In the most obvious
and general sense, it is true these words describe
duty proportional to the tonnage Of the vessel
certain rate on each ton. But il seems plain
that, taken in this restricted sense the constitu
tional provision would not fully accomplish its in.
tent. The general prohibition upon the States
against levying duties on imports or pexports
would have been Intellectual II II had not been ex
tended TO duties on the ships which serve as the
vehicles Of conveyance. This extension was
doubtless intended, By the prohibition Of any duty
of tonnage. II was not only pro rata tax which
was prohibited, but any duty on the ship, whether
a fixed sum upon its whole tonnage or q sum to
be ascertained by comparing the amount Of ton.
mage with the rate Of duty.
In this view Of the case, the levy of the tax In
question is expressly prohibited.
On the whole, We are clearly OF opinion that the
act Of the legislature OF Louisiana is repugnant to
the Constitution, and hat the Judgment of the
Supreme Court Of .ne Stata u1uat therafora ha