Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-09-24
OYSTER roNNaGE rAx.
Tonnage Licenses for Taking
oysters Alleged 60 be Unconstitu-
IiOnaI.

Tonnage Licenses for Taking
oysters Alleged 60 be UnconstiIu-
tiOnaI.
Baltimore Sun special sf
CAsBRIDGE, MD., Sept. l9.--Further
and graver complications in the oyster
laws, state and local, are threatened. since
an examination of authorities in eonnee-
tion with the test case of Captain Asbury
Meredith, submitted to Judge Irving, at
cambridge, on Thursday. In Meredith's
position the only question was whether
chapter Els of the acts of 1884 was void
under tile constitution of the United
States, in so far as it requires all vessels
10 take out license, at the rate Of IS per
ton, when they are engaged in buying,
selling end carrying oysters within the
stat III by others in Maryland
J-day Sewell It. Milbourne,
,ented Captain Meredith in the
e, was consulted by number
..g .-Nding oyster mon of Cambridge
on much wider and more important
question, viz: Whether said act was moi
also void under the constitution of the
United States when it provided that yes
sells engaged in catching oysters should
pay such license tonnage tax, as well as
when engaged in the carrying trade
And also, whether the Dorchester county
local oyster law was not void When it inn
posed a license tonnage tax of 81 per ton
on AL vessels engaged in taking oysters
with scoops or dredges in Dorchester
watersI
Mr.. Nlilbourne gave an opinion sub
stantially MS follows These provisions
are all equally void under article OF the
constitution, which forbids the states to
impose any tonnage tax without the con-
sent of Congress. The use or the time on
place of use cannot change or modifya a
prohibition that is absolute. There are
no circumstances which can affect the APP
plication of snid prohibition except that
such tax may be imposed b. the states
with the consent of Congress inst s. lad
the states shall impose no tom
so much per ton of vessels
burthen. The provision involved in the
Meredith case was void, not only because
il imposed tonnage tax in the carrying
trade, but, among other reasons, because
it interfered with the authority of Con
gress TO regulate commerce. The highest
courts in the land have held that each
state may regulate its fisheries, and that
laws for said purpose are not an interfex-
ence with the right of Congress to rcgu-
late commerce, SO long as they concern
the taking Of fish, oysters, &C., provided
they infringe no other provision Of the
constitution. But when a state in connoc-
ton with its fisheries imposes liconsa
tonnage tax, such state will be called ON
to reckon with the said article of the
constitution, and not the one which
prohibits any interference with con
gressional regulations as to commerce.
The Supreme Court has held that state
can impose tax on vessel property under
an assessment of its value, but that no
tax which is rated and fixed by the
number of tous in the vessel, instead of by
its value, is valid If the state wishes to
require license for dredging vessels it
will have to fix some arbitrary sum for
such license or charge certain per cent
on the assessed value of the Same, or
adopt some other method except by the
number of tons. The general law of 1885
and the Dorchester law of 1882 are thore-
fore both void so far as said license ton
mage tax is concerned"
The parties mentioned have expressed
determination to test the matter by max
ing up case within the next two weeks,
and have retained M. Milbourne as
counsel.