National Republican., 1883-02-06
THE SUPREME COURT,
A Case Involving tho ConSHtutionaliy Of
Tobacco Inspection Laws
The Judgment Of the Court Of Appeals
Of Maryland Affirmed.
The Now YORK Law for the Inspection Of Passengers
Held to be Unconstitutional.
FREQ Human Beings nrc Neither Imports
nor Exports.
TILE MARYLAND TOBACCO LAVE.

A decision was rendered by the supreme
court Of the United States yesterday in the
case of Henry 4. Turner plaintiff in error,
against the state Of Maryland, in error to the
Maryland court of appeals
This case involves the constitutionality of
certain provisions of the laws of Maryland
relating to tobacco inspection. The provis-
ions in question lscction II Of chapter 3l6 of
tho laws Of Maryland of 1864, rs amended
and rc-CnactCd by ChaptCr 2OlO of the laws OF
1870 are as follows: After the passage of
this act II shall not be- lawful to carry out of
this state in hogshCads any tobacco raised in
this state, except in hogshcads which shall
have been inspected, passed, and marked
agrccahly to the provisions of this act, unless
such tobacco shall have been inspected aud
passed before this act goes into operation;
and any person violating the provisions of
this section shall forfeit and pay the sum of
$500, which may br recovered in any court of
law of this state and which shall go to the
credit of the tobacco funds Pr0Ciddcd, That
nothing herein contained shall he construed
to prohibit any grower of tobacco, or any pur-
chaser thereof, who may pack the same
in the county or ncighbOrhOOd where
grown, from exporting or carrying out of
this state any such tobacco without
inspections shall In all eases be marked with
the nnmo I'm full of the owner thereof and
the residence of such owner, and shall be
liable to the same charge of outage and stor-
age rs in other eases; and any person who
shall carry or send out of this state any such
tobacco without having it so marked shall
be subject to the penalty prescribed by this
section" This court hold in long and care
fully prepared opinion by Mr. justice Blatch.
ford
l. That this section in It's provisions 10 charges
for out. lnd storage iSnot In violation ofcausu
ID |
United states n, respects any impoI or duty
imposed by Il on exports, or IN violation OF the
~ congress to regulate commerce with foreign
nations und among the several states
q That the charge for outage under the pro-
viso of snid section 81, amended and enacted,
Is an inspection duty within the meaning of
the constitution
.. That dispensing with an opening for inspec
tlon of ilr nOgsh cads mentioned in tho prOvlsO
does not iu view of the other provisions of the
tobacco inspection laws OF Maryland, deprive
those statutes of the character Of roction laws
t. That IL Is not foreign TO the character Of All
inspection Jaw to require every hogshead Of to-
5. That the section OF the law In controversy Is
not u regulation of commerce or unconstitutional,
as dtcrimnaimg between the state buyer and
mnuuiaCturer oi leaf tobacco, and the purchaser
who buys for the purpose of transporting the to-
bncco TO another state or TO q foreign country, or
as discriminating between different classes of ex
porters of tobacco.
g. That tie charge for outage in this case mp.
dcrcd.
Tho Judgment of the court of appeals of
Maryland is affirmed.
NEW YORK INSPECTION LAWS.
A decision was also rendered in the case of
the people of tho state of New York, plaintiff
in error against The Colnpagnie Generate
TransatlantiQuc. In error to the circuit court
\ of the United States for the southern district
of New York. This was u suit brought by the
state of New York against the steamship COM
pany to recover the sum of SITO0 alleged TO
be due the state by virtue of u statute of New
York, passed May 81, 1851, entitled "An act
to raise money for the execution Of tho in
spcction laws of the state of New York"
Section l of this act under which the present
suit was brought is as follows:
There shall be levied mud coleG;.ld duty of 81
for each and every nlia' pRssASer who shall
come by vessel iroH for !gi poTSNtO the port OF
New new tSrk Ior WHOM IN, mas not heretofore been
t wv o sS Nn,, v w Uo G M 20 1ne GhonDerlGin OF
or conSigneu OF ever such vessel within twenty
four hours after th' entrJ thereof into the port Of
Nov York.
Justice Miller, who delivered the opinion of
the court, said that it had been so repeatedly
decided by this court that such tax as this
is n regulation Of colnmcr,a with foreign na-
tiOns, cOnidcd by the constitution TO the eN-
elusive control of congress; and this court
has so recently consideted the whole subject
III regard to similar statutes of the states of
'
ll less the court Is prepared to reverse its de-
~Gisions and the principles on which they arc
- pasCd in the cases of Henderson against tho
mayor of New Nurl; and Chy Lung against
Freeman t92 United States reports. 2j0.21J)
there is little to say beyond affirming the iudg-
ment OF the CirCut court, which was based on
these decisions. The argument mainly relied
on In the present case Justice Miller, in sub.
stance says, Is that the new statute Of New
York (pas'cd after her former statute had
been declared vu'd in the passenger Cases -
z Howard, 9-3, aud in the recent case of Hen
derson against the mayor is IN aid of the in
spcCtiun laws of the state. This argument
Is supposed to derive support from another
statute of the state, passed three DAYS earlier
entitled, "An act for the inspection of alien
omigrants and their effects by the commits
sioncrs of emigration" This act empowers
and directs the commissioners of emigration
to "inspcct the persons and effects of all pcr-
sons arriving by vessel ut the port of New
York from any foreign country, as far as may
be necessary, to ascertain who among them
are habitual criminals or paupcr lunatics,
idiots or imbccilcs, or deaf dumb, blind, in.
fra, or orphan persons, without means or
capacity 10 support themselves, aud subject
to become public charge, and whether their
persons or effects are affected with any inlrc-
tous or contagious disease, and whether their
effects contain amy criminal implements or
contrivnnccs'
Subsequent sections direct how such char
aCtGrs, II found, shall be dealt with by tho
board, and other sections of the act OF May 81,
1881, direct tie chamberlain of the city to puy
over tO the commissioners OF immigration all
such sums Of money rs may be necessary for
tho execution Of the inspection luws'O the
state, and Ia tho trcasurcroithe United States
the net produce Of all tho duties received by
him, altcr the necessary payments TO the COM
missioner OF emigration shall have been paid.
These two statutes il Is argued, are "inspec-
tOn laws" within the mcmingof article /,
section 10, clause ?, of the constitution of tho
United States.
What laws may properly be classcd as Gin
spoctiOn laws undcr this provision of the
constitution, must be determined largely by
the nature Otthc inspection laws of the states
at the time the constitution was framed.
This court feels quite safe in saying that
neither Mt the time Of the formation of the
constitution, nor siHce has any inspection
law included anything but personal property
rs a subject of its operation. Nor has IL ever
been held by any competent judicial authority
that the words imports" and "cXportsn ~
are used in that instrument us applicable ia
free human beings. We know OF nothing
which can be exported from our country, or
imported into another that Is not in some
sense property, property IN regard to which
some one Is owner, aud of which the owner Is
either the importer or the exporter. This
cannot apply to freeman. OF him it isnever
said he imports himself or his wife, or his
children.
The language of section o of article / of
the constitution, which Is relied on by coun-
sci, does not establish different constitution,