Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1871-07-20
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, J
Office Of Commissioner of Customs, :
September I'd, 1869. \
Commissioner.

~, addressed TO the Secretary Of tn
Treasury, and enclosing a letter t
you from A. S. Higgins, Agent of til
Merchants and Miners Transportatio
Company, and also a letter to yo
from Thomas b. Andrews, Agent G
the Baltimore and Savannah Stear
Ship Company, has been referred t
this Office.
Both of these agents complain q
certain fees, taxes, or sport tonnag
duties" imposed upon and collecte,
Of the lines of steamers the,
respectively repr sent, by the cit,
authorities of Baltimore and Savannah
and their object is to ascertain whethe1
such fees, or port tonnage duties,
are legal.
The question whether state or mu
nicipal authorities have the right tc
levy and collect harbor- masters fees OF
vessels entering the ports of any State
or city claiming this right, came be-
fore the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia in 1867, upon the
claim of the harbor-master of the city
Of Washington, of fifty cents for port
tonnage" Of the sloop Nautilus"
Capt. Il. c. Burnes, master and owner,
Of 9 4O-1O0 tons. Mr.. Justice Wykes,
in delivering the opinion of the Court,
after argument, said: The
Plaintiff in error, Of the sloop "Nau-
titus vessel of less than fifty tons
burden, engaged in the coasting trade,
and although the judgment against
him was for the small amount of fifty
cents and costs, yet he has considered
it his duty to bring the case before
us for the purpose Of testing a ques-
ton which is of general concern to all
vessels visiting this port. Section 10
of the first Article of the Constitution
Of the United States declares, mo
State shall, without the consent of
Congress, lay an impast, or duties on
imports or exports, except what may
be for the use Of the Treasury of the
United States, and all such laws shall
be subject to the revision and control
Of Congress" 1t further declares
that no State shall, without the con-
sent Of Congress, lay any duty on ton
mage, etc. The first question for our
determination is, whether these char
Dor fees" as they are called in the cor
poration law, are duties on tonnage,
which the corporation is prohibited
from collecting without the consent of
Congress.
The Judge then proceeds to consid-
err the question, and having shown that
these "harbor fees" were neither more
or less than tonnage continues:
1t would have been gross inconsis-
tcncy in the Constitution had it con-
ferred on Congress the right of exclu-
sive legislation as to duties on imports
or exports, and left the several States
the right to lay taxes on vessels en-.
gagged in the conveyance of those i'm
ports and exports. 1t follows, there
fore, that the ordinance in question is
a violation Of the Constitution of the
United States.
"The tax is substantially a duty,
Notwithstanding it is called by diff
ferent name. The judg.
ment Of the justice (of the peace)
must be reversed"
The judgment Of the Justice of the
Peace was adverse to the owner and
master Of the vessel, who appealed
thercfrom.
The Supreme Court Of the United
States, at its December term, 1867, in
4 case brought before it by writ of
error to the Supreme Court of Louis
lana, decided, "a statute Of State
enaeting that the masters and wardens
of port within it, should be entitled
to demand and receive, in addition to
other fees, the sum of FIVE dollars,
whether called on to perform any SER
vice or not, for every vessel arriving
at that port, is regulation Of COM
mercc within the meaning Of the Con-
stitution, and also duty on tonnage,
and is unconstitutional and void
[see 8 Wallace's Reports, 3d.
In delivering the opinion of the
Court, Chief Justice Chase said,
THAT the act of the Legislature Of
Leuisisna isareguiation Of commerce,
can hardly be doubted. II imposes
tar ursn every ship entering tie port