Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-01-12
QUARANTINE CHARGES.
A STATES RIGHT TO IMPOSE
SUCH DENIED.

An Aaportant Test case at New Orleans
The Louisiana State Board of Health
Perpetually EnjOined from Collecting
guarantee Fees-Fun Text of Judge
MOnrOe's Decision.
The following is the decision of Judge
+. A. Monroe i'll the important case of
MOrgan's Louisiana and Texas Railroad
and Steamship Company VS.. the Board of
Health of the State of Louisiana, No. 7OO1,
Civil District Court, Division c.:
Plaintiff owns a number of steamships which
are engaged IN the business of commerce be-
tween the port of New Orleans and various
other ports in the United States and else
where.
Under the quarantine laws of this State.
each OF these ships entering the port of New
Orleans through the mouth of the Mississippi
river Is required to report at the quarantine
station, established by the State authorities at
the latter point for the purpose of inspection
and, If necessary, of disinfection.
When ship halls from port in which yell
low fever does not usually prevail and in
which no contagious or Infectious disease is
reputed to exist, and has not touched at any
such port, and has not come in contact with
any yessel having any contagious or infectious
disease on board, and there is no contagious or
infectious disease actually on board of such
ship. and she is not in a foul condition. the
master, upon the payment of the sum of thirty
dollars, is furnished by the Health Officer at
the station IN question with ''permit' to pro-
ceed with the ship to the city of New Orleans.
When, however, the ship comes from a port
IN winch yellow fever usually prevails, or in
which some contagious or infectious disease is
reported to exist, or has touched at such port
or has come in contact with some vessel having
such disease on board, or actually has such
disease ON board, or is in a foul condition. she
is detained at the station and subjected to a
process of disinfectiOn by fumigation and other
methods, after which, and upon payment Of
the $50 mentioned above as the charge for in
spection, and OF an additional sum of from $40
to S25 as the charge for disinfection, the e'per-
nit, or certificate, IS given and the ship is
allowed to enter the port.
The particular statute under which the fee
or charge of $50 is exacted is the act No. 50, of
1882, which reads as follows:
"SECTIoN l. BE il enacted, etc., That the
resident physician at the quarantine station
on the Mississippi river shall require for every
inspection and granting certificate, the follow
ing fees and charges: For every ship, thirty
$3.50 dollars; for every bark, twenty $40 dol
schooner, seven dollars and fifty cents Isl 5Oj:
for every steamboat (tow boats excepted, five
so dollars; for every steamship, thirty $500
dollars.
''SEC. 2. That the Board OF Health shall have
an especial lien and privilege on the vessels so
inspected for the amount of said fees and
charges, and may collect the same, if unpaid,
by suit before any court of competent iursdic-
tion, and in aid thereof shall be entitled to the
writ of provisional seizure on said vessels"
By virtue of other provisions of law, which
1t Is unnecessary to quote, the Board of Health
as the cost of disnfecti0n when such treat
ment is considered necessary,
The effect OF the present suit is to perpetu-
ally enj0in the collection of these charges and
to restrain the BOARD of Health from detain-
ing the plaintiffs vessels because of their nom
payment, OF from enforcing the quarantine
regulations as against said vessels in a more
oppressive manner than against others.
The plaintiff alleges that the laws relied on,
in so far as they purpOrt to authorize the ex-
action OF the fees and charges in question, are
null and void, in that they cOntravene-
!. Article !, section 8, paragraph 8, of the
Constitution Of the United States, which pro-
vides that:
Congress shall have power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several States and With the In
dian tribes.
,. Article l, section 10, paragraph 8, which
provides that: 'sN9 State shall, without the
consent Of Congress, lay any duty of ton
mage"
8. Article /, section 9, paragraph 6, which
provides that: mo preference shall be given
by any regulation of commerce or revenue to
the ports of one State over those Of another
nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be
Obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in an
otheT.H
1t is remarkable that in view of the fact that
the convention which adopted the Constitu-
tion of the United States distinctly deter
mined, after the most elaborate and earnest
discussion, that the States should not be al
lowed, without the consent of Congress, to levy
duties of tonnage for any purpose whatever
discussion as to whether such duties may not
be imposed for the support of police or quar-
antine regulation establishment by State for
the protection of the health of its citizens.
In order to show how cear2y this whole
subject was placed before the convention,
quote the foilowiRg passage from the ssHis-
tory Of the Constitution of the United States"
by Judge Curtis, vol 2, p S70 He says.
SIN order TO vest the superyls ion and control
OF the Wh9le su4jeeF in Congress, il has fur
ther pFqYided that no state, without the con-
sent OF Congress, shall levy any duty of ton
mage. An exception proposed by some of the
Maryland and Virginia members (of the com
vention which adopted the Constitution. with
a view to the situation of the Chesapeake hav
illustrates the object of the proElsron. They
desired that the states nlight not lie restrain
ed from laYin6 dgtie3 OF tonnage for the pur-
pose or clearing harb0re and erecting light
houses. y was, perhaps, capable of being CON
was already agreed to be vest edin the General
government, the States were restrained
by that ~ provision from layibs .ssnnage
%ns TO- uae ahe 3osGs s nn Sa esea
the efledt Of the proposed exception was to
divide the commercial power and to give the
states concurrent authority to regulate COM
merce for particular purpose. But q majority
of the States considered the resalatloil af tom
mage an essential po,n5 ef tic regulation of
trade Tier sddpted the suggestion of Mr..
Madison, that the regulation Of commerce was
in It's nature indivisible and ought to be
wholly under one authority. The exception
was accordingly reresle3.r r''7
II was eessainIy Capable of being construct
ed With WI great forceof reason, with reference
to the particular exceptiou ipfapdsed in the
ctonventlQn-tEAf fAe pieaFing of haFbors and
the ereetian OF lighthouses might be regarded
as service rendered to commerce, and that
IN paying therefor the commerce of the coun-
try would merely pay for service rendeled
The conclusion of the convent ion KoWeyar.
appears to have been tAat the power to i'm
pose conlpalsArY charges or exactions for anv
~,
power to regulate commerce. and that the
power ought to be vested in tk,s General Gov
ernment and i,e undivided. -,
They therefore refused, as we hsvs seen tn
adopt into the Constitution An exception per-
mitting the StatGs 10 lay a'dhty of TONNAGE To
clear ianDoIs and erect lfghtlI9uses = -
has LEN fHS ga, 99%eyeF adqEt geslsleR WHICH
clause Yestlng m Congress tho power to regu-
Iate commerce, refer % paragraph 2, section
lO, article !, which provides that
mo state shall, without the ns;;neento of Cow
gress, lay any imp"sts or duties or. i,nn6rts or
% except what n,Sy pe absolut teiy neces-
sary for eXecgtlng its inspection laws, and the
net pfCdqce' OF all duties and impOsts laid hy
any state on imports or exports. shall be for
the use of the Treasury of the United states,
and all such laws shall be subject to the re.
vision and control of the Congress-
II is conceded that the inspection laws thus
referred to are such laws as may be enacted
for the inspection of merchandise an9 that
the imposts or duties in guesTi51 are such as
may be imposed gls2h i5efShandise.
Ih4s e9crpFl0n, therefore, In no Wav affects
the prohibition contained in the very next
paragraph of the same article, to the effect
that mo state shall, without the consent cf
Congress, lay any duty of tonnage" since the
duty Of tonnage is levied WON tlIe ship. and is
not an impOst or dizzy upon merchandise i'm
ported Il e@pogted:' T lie exception 10 attached
to the pfohilntiol TO which 1t relates, whilst
the prohibition against the levying Of duties
Of tonnage stands alone and without excep-
ton, nor can this exception be held ta affeet
the power of Congress e Iegufat6 commerce.
In Gihson Ys, qElen, Wheat. 2O5 the Su-
premB Court said:
''The object Of the. inspection laws is to ina-
prove the quality of articles pTaQaeed by the
labor OF the copAtfy, 10 Mt them for exporta-
tlQn, Or ~ may be for domestic use. They act
upon the subject before it becomes an article
of foreign commerce, or of commerce among
the States, and prepare it for thas pIIsp0se r.
So in the case of Br0Nh Is: Maryland, u
Wheaton, 80 ii was saidi
.sIne tax or duty of inspection is frequently
II not always, paid while the article is in the
bosom of the country" ~ "
The exception ysas made because the
tax wGglG otherwise have been within the
prohibition. '.-- . N-t9''7 ~
Considering the language last above quoted.
1t occurs to the mind At once that even II this
exception should have the effect of leaving
with the states the power to regulate COM
meFce for the purpose of the inspection of
merchandise, this results solely from the faot
that said exception Is embodied il tne C0nsti-
tuition, but when we further consider thelimi- |
tations to which the exception is subject. il
becomes more and more manifest that il car
have no such effect; since, in the first plaee it
Is provided that the net yeIenue of ali such |
impOsts shall Le ier the use of the United
states treasury, thus combining the interests |
or the state in the matter to the actual
cost Of Inspection and guarding against the
use OF the power referred 70 IS 4 means Of |
regulating commerce, and, In the next place. |
1t Is proViGed that TALL such laws shall be sub