Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-01-12

q Il.
"On the contrary, they are treated as quar-
antine and health laws, are so denominated in
the acts of Congress, and are SO
as nowqp pw1g from the
provide for the health of las citizens That
as il has appeared that some of the provisions
made for that purpose and in virtue of this
power might interfere with and be affected nv
the laws of the United States made for the
regulation of commerce, Congress, in that
spirit of harpOny and Cancellation which
ought always to characterize governments
standing in the relation which that of the
Union and those of the States have to each
other, has directed its officers to aid in the ex-
ecutlon of these laws, and has, in some meas
ure, adapted its own legislation to this object
Dy making provisions N aid of those of the
States. But in making those provisions the
opinion Is unequivocally manifested that Con-
gress may control the State laws so far as it
may be necessary TO control them for the reg
ulation of commerce" Wheat, POS.
Referring to the act of 1899, mentioned in
the foregoing opinion, we find that it contains
the following section and proviso, to wit:
"The quarantine and other restraints which
shall be requiredby the health laws of any
State.or pursuant thereto, respecting anv yes-
sells arriving in or bound to any port or dis
tTlct thereof, whether from foreign port or
place. or from another district of the United
States, shall be duly observed by the Collec-
tors" land other Federal Offcers).
''PrOcided, That nothing herein contained
shall cUdblt any olaIe To collect q OutV of TON
mage or impost without the consent of the Con-
gress of the United States"
The insertion of the prOyisO was unnecces-
sary, perhaps. as the Constitution itself con-
tatns the same prohibitions: but il NAV have
been thought that the language of the act
would be construed as implying the consent
OF Congress to the levying of tonnage to sup-
port quarantine, and the insertion Of the pro-
vlso is significant as showing that Congress lat
that time composed of men some of whom had
framed the Constitution entertained no doubt
that whilst the States might, without the con-
sent of Congress. enact and enforce their
health laws, they could not levy duties of tom
mage to defray the expense of the same.
III was also FOUND upon the adoption of the
Constitution that there was In force in every
state system for the regulation of pilotaCe
which system was adopted by Congress by ACT
of August I, 1889, and given the same Yalidit7
as If its provisions had been specially enacted
by Congress. II, therefore, any duty of ton
mage for plotage or half pilotage is collected
such collection is made with the consent of
Congress.
Again, in many ports, wharyea have been
constructed either by private or municipal en-
terprise, and all vessels landing at such
wharves are charged a certain amonnt-either
so much per ton, or a fixed sum for vessels of n
particular descriptiOn-for the use af the
wharves and the peculiar artificial facilities
Afforded by them, upon precisely the same
principle that charges are made by the nro
prietors of dry docks for Accommodations TO
vessels, except that the charge for wharfage
exceed reasonable compensation.
SO, IN the case of port waFdens, if the master
OF vessel permits them TO render service to
his vessel, the port warden Is entitled to his
compensation. But l think if the correct
principle, as stated by the learned counsel for
plaintin in his brief, that any charge imnosed
by the state upon vessel engaged Ia COM
merce, for which no equivalent i given is a
duty of tonnage, whether such Charge he
measured by the tonnage of the vessel or inn
posed as g liked sum upon all vessels of a par
tlculsc character; And, beyond this, | am
satisfied that the States have no authority 10
impose upon vessels services which are nei-
ther needed nor desired, and exact Davment
therefor of sums fixed by the States them
In the case at bar, for instance. IL apnears
from t1e testimony that the fumigatiOn of A
vessel Tor the purpose of disinfection desfrovs
more or less of the reaches and other yermin
Dy Wnlch shlps are sometimes infected End il
may be said that the destruction oF sIich ver-
min is advantageous t. the ship, but it would
be dlincuit 70 demonstrate upon what princi-
PIE g law or common sense the State OF Lou
lsiana should be permitted, against the wishes
OF the owner, but at his expense even 10
destroy vermin on his vessel unless in fur
Inference OF sQgAs police or health regulation: i:
but the very basis of the power Vhi,b fhe
States possess to adopt and enfaree snch ,reon
latlon ls the Inherent and inalienable right of
sell protection. And the basis of the arr1Imenf
OF the defense IN this case is that the State has
exercised this power to establish quarantine
Tor the protection of her citizens: neitber the
power, therefore, nor the manner ~ lis ever
else. else IN n TINS case, affords he shadow of pre-
against the wishes of the owner. are sheroI,1
renaered a service for which sum of moneyy
arbitrarily fixed by tbs state may be eyaNtsd
Inc point gt;9n which counsel teE defendant
appears 20 pace most reliance is, that the
charSes which are here objected to are not
duties OF tonnage, because they are not 6ro
Poruenea 70 the tonnage of the yesseis taxed
character of the vessels ~ 'io o'"ss VI
If, as we have seen. no service r. ,,erdorod
W ~ tne vessel, there exista no basis for the
charge, whether L he duty of tonnage or
10d; ! o6; pel tAe proposition that steamship of
5,VO4 TONS can he forced TO pay $50 toward the
support of our health and quarantine system
provided the charge is imposed without the
use OF the word tonnage, and vet that nsthlng
GSuiu - tH pe colIected for so excellent purpose
II tne charge Is imposed AZ the rate of one
cent per ton, 1t seeI,s "a me Is disrespectful to
TO the Constitution of the United States.
me same point has, however, been sug-
gested before, and was thus disposed of 6v
Chief Justice Chase: at was not only a nro
rata tax which was prohibited hut anv dntv
on the ship, whether lxed sam upon IFS
whole tonnage q. q 4hIh to be ascertained by
comparing tI.e amount of tonnage with the
rate OF Duty" Wallace, 80.
In TINS same case, in referring to tia aues
ton OF the right of the port warden 10 collect
ices Without the rendition Of specific services,
upon the Theory that it was an adyantsge To-
commerce. that such officers sbopl,t t,e at hand.
the court said: ~ w -'''-''''
ut may be tt8e thar the existence of sucb
DoOty 81 3AeA y henencial to commerce, but the
same IS true OF the government of the S.ate.
OF the CITY government, of the courts of the
whole body of public funetraaIies If the
e@9nasstltntionalty GO as Of tkS eharge for the benefit
oI lhe Muster ana Wardens can be maintained
upon tAe ground that it secures cor:Densatinn
Tor services II is difficult 10 perceive upon
what ground the cGnstitutionality of anV
state ga law imposing taxessfor the benefit OF
fIOE1Tlnfnf voc IL
lts ports can be questioESss. 6 Wall, 33, See
90; 81 AnG,, fd3. '"'@ 7'A"' r.
,sd.l9 ~ in9teiyention was a1ea ia this suit by the
Attorney '|enerala on behalf of the state. ir
winch IT y alleged that the plaintiff is seekfn1
10 hsiES Annuled laws "whereby revenues aro
raised ana provided for the maintenance and
support of the quarantine system ami ser,.ica
OF said state for the prevention az fhe intro
auction OF contagious ard iufeetious diseSses
iAto tne state of IsoVisiafia,H y etc all of which
is undoubtedly true, and exhibits sufficient in
!eisst 2n we part Of te9 state to justify the
1t also serves 30 illustrate more clearly the
con1llct setWeen the laws referred to and the
Constitution OF the United States, since it is
tbns Judlclally admitted and averre6 by the
state Of Louisiana that she derives 4 revenue
by the imposition of CHARGES uDon All vessels
entering the mouth Of the Mississippi river.
WhereWtt9 sue supports her quarantine
system and service, while the laws themselves.
and the evidence in this case, show th9t the
damages are imposed with the sole pllrI10se of
raising this revenue and withoas rendering. or
the intention to render any service Whatever
to the ships charged. . W
That the l4arantire service ls ably and in
telligently Conducted there can be no douht
but ms affords no reason for requiring that it
should be supported by those who are un.,er
no legal obligations so to do.
FOr tnese reasons, deemiLS ii unnecessary to
consider other poipts Faised.'I am of opinion
that the iniapetiOn herein issued shonld he
maintained and perpetuated at the cost Of de-
1endant and the Intervention di.mlssed