The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-03-29

Of the United States Il Is void no difference under
what class OF powers may fall or how closely allied
10 powers conceded TO belong to the States
1T has been contended " says Chief Justice Marshall,
THAT II law passed by State IN the exercise OF us &C.
knowedged sovereignty comes INTO conflict with law
passed Oy Congress in pursuance OF the constitution
they affect the subject and each other like equal oppos
ms powers But the trainers OF constitution lore
saw TINS state OF things and provided for by decar-
ing the supremacy only Of itself but OF the laws
made in pursuance thereof The nulty of any act in
consistent with the constitution is produced by the
declaration that the constitution is supreme " Anc
where the federal government has acted says:"lu
every such case the OF Congress or the treaty is
supreme and the laws OF The state though enacted in
the exercise OF powers not controvered yield 10
II" % Wheaton, 2lO)
II Is SAID however that under the decisions OF this
Court there Is kind OF neutral ground especially
that covered by the regulation Of commerce, which
may be occupied by the State, and its legislation be
valid long II interfcres with OF Congress
treaty oil the United States Such proposition il sup
ported by the opinions of several OF the judges
passenger cases. by the decisions Of tins Court Cody
The Board OF Wardens III How. 299l, and by the
case Of Crandall VS.. Nevada % Wall $751; and Gilman
Philadelphia g WALL 7l3) But this doctrine has
always been controverted in this Court and has
seldom, If ever been stated without dissent These
decisions however, all agree that under the commerce
clause OF the constitution within It's compass, there
powers which, from their nature are exclusive in
Congress and in the case of Cody VS. The Board Of
wardens II said that, whatever subjects OF this
power are in their nature national or admit OF one
uniform system or plan Of regulation may justly be
said be OF such nature TO require exclusive legis
laton by Congress. regulation which imposes
onerous, perhaps impossible, conditions ON those en-
must Of necessity be national in its character.
lt Is than this, for II may properly bo
called internatlona IL Deiongs 10 that CLASS OF laws
which concern the exterior relation of this whole
ton with other nations and governments II our gov
ernment should make the restrictions of these bur.
dens on commerce the SUBJECT OF treaty. there could
be doubt that such treaty would TALL within the
power conferred the President and Senate by the
constitution. IL is, in fact in eminent degree
subject which concerns international relations, In
regard TO which foreign ought be considered
their rights respected whether the rule be estab-
or nv
1t IS equally clear that the matter OF these statutes
may be- aud ought be, the subject OF uniform sys
TEN or plan The laws which govern the right TO land
passengers IN the United States from other countries
ought TO be the same in New York, Boston, New Or
leans and San Francisco. striking evidence Of the
truth OF this proposition is be found in the SINH
arity, almost Identity Of the statutes of New York.
Louisiana and California before us for consdera.
ton in these three cases.
1t is apparent, therefore, that II there be class Of
laws which may be valid when passed by the States;
until the ground occupied by treaty or au act
OF Congress, this statute is not of that class.
The argument has been pressed with some earnest
ness that inasmuch this statute does into
operation until twenty four hours alter the passenger
has landed, and has mingled with or has the right
minge with the mass Of the population, ne Is with.
drawn from the influence OF any laws which Congress
might pass the subject and RENTED TO the laws OF
the State as It's own citizens 1t might be SUM-
Gent to say that this is evasion of the
protection which the foreigner has right to expect
from the federal government when he lands here a
stranger, owing allegiance TO another government and
looking to II for such protection as grows out Of his
lation to that government
consider
Ing directed to and operates directly on the ship
owner. II holds him responsible Tor what he has done
before the twentyIour hours commences He is give
the bond or pay the money because he has landed the
passenger, and he is given twenty hours time
do this before the penalty attaches When he is sued
for this penalty II because the man has been
here twenty four hours but because he brought him
here aud failed to give the bond pay 81 So
The effective operation Of this law at the
other end OF the voyage. The master requires Of the
passenger before he is admitted board, part OF
the passage money, the sum which he knows he must
a mi ~ nj linz I'm in Xngk
is as we have already said in effect tax the pas
scnger, which be pays for the right TO make the voy
age, voyage only completed when he lands on the
American shore. The case does not require to
consider what period after his arrival the passenger
tuition laws and treaties OF the United States and
comes subject to such laws the State may rightfuy
pass as was the in regard to mportaons of mer
chandise IN Brown Maryland, IL Wheaton, All, and
in The License Cases, How, 504
1t is too clear Tor argument that this demand OF the
owner of the vessel for bond money account Of
every passenger landed by him from eregn shore IS,
If valid, obligation which he incurs by bringing the
passenger here aud which is perfect the moment he
leaves the vessel
We are of opinion that this whole subject has been
conhded TO Congress by the constitutions; that Con-
gross can more appropriately and with more accept
ance exercise 1t than any other body known to Law,
State national; that by providing system OF laws
in these matters applicable TO all ports and to all
sells, question, which has long been matter Of
contest and complaint may be enectualy and salts
Whether, in the absence of such action, the States
can or how far they can by appropriate legislation.
protect themselves against actual paupcrs vagrantS
CRIMINALS and diseased persons arriving in their terri
tory from foreign countries, do not decide. Tho
portions OF the New York statute which concern per-
sons who, on inspection. are found to belong TO
these classes not properly before u.s. because the
relief sought TO the part OF the statute applicable
all passengers alike and is the only relief which
be given in this bill
The Of the Circuit Court OF New York, in the
case OF John and Thomas Henderson The Mayor OF
New York and the Commissioners of Emigration is re-
verscd and the remanded with direction enter
decree Tor an injunction in accordance with this
opinion.
The statute OF Louisiana which is involved In the
case of The Commissioners OF Emigration VS.. Tho
North German Lloyd Is very similar TO, II not
act copy of that OF New York separate
sideration. In this the relief sought against
exacting the bonds or paying the Communication money
as to all passengers, which relief the Circuit Court
granted by an appropriate injunction and the in
that case IS accordingly affirmed.
True copy.l
Attest ID, w. MIDDLETON,
IL. 5. Clerk Supreme Court United States.
THE LOST GREAT WESTERN