Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-29
.HARB0R masters EEES INEGELl[
/. Continued from First Page..,l,8

this constitutes such O Discrimination
In favor of Ylrgnia citizens against
citizens Of other States and Is such a !
regulation Of commerce, giving pre-
ference to the Virginia ports over
those OF other States, as to be in cor,
PREVENTION of both of these articles or
the Constitution. q 5s9
1t is maintained for the plaintiff that
the whole Of these provisions of the
Virginia Statute on the subject Of har,
bors and Harbor Masters are: First,
mere police regulations, perfectly COM
petenty for the State to make and en-
force; and, second, that it is not sound
to argue that there is any discrimina-
tion whatever In the act in question;
that the citizens and products of Vir-
ginia are no more benefited by the ex>
emptions than those Of other States.
since the nationality, so to speak, of
the craft is not involved in the net,
but only the nature of her VOYAGE that
citizens of other States may own the
very vessels plying between Norfolk
and Portsmouth and other Virginia
ports, and escape payment Of fees,
While citizens Of this State may be the
owners OF craft not falling within the
exceptions, and thereby be liable to
payment of fees; and that. on the other
hand, 1t Is not regulation OF COM
merce in favor, of Virginia ports, and
against the ports OF other States, since
the large class of craft actually ex-
empt do not. in fact, come from this
State. but from ports outside>>of it;
for instance, vessels reporting for
bunker coal, vessels engaged In the
| canal trade, etc.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN
VOLVED.
shall discuss the constitutional
question involved first from the view
point of the authorities cited for the
plaintiff:
~ long line of the decisions OF the
Supreme Court of the United States
have fixed the law, that 1t Is perfect
~ competent for the Legislatures Of the
States to pass enactments under the
police powers inherent in them, which
have for their object the preservation
| of the health, morals or convenience
OF their citizens, and that even IL In the
| commerce is incidentally and not I'M
| duly obstructed or burdened. such laws
| arc not repugnant to the Constitution
| of the United States
| THESE decisions are we'll summarized
in the case of Lake Shore and Michigan
Railroad Company VS.. Ohio. 173 II. s.
KEEP. 2S5. This was n case arising upon
! an Ohio statute requiring every rail
| road company in that State to cause
| three each way OF its trains daily, IL
so many were run, to stop at stations
| In Ohio where there were more than
| 1000 inhabitants and providing Il pen
atty for its violation. The defendant
| company was an Interstate road, and
| did not stop its trains ut a certain VII
lage, which was within the act. The
| company claimed that said act regu-
lated Interstate commerce, and was,
| therefore, unconstitutional and that Il
| had the right to start its trains in one
| State and run through another without
stopping. In other words, as the court
said. that 1t could deprive the people
of Ohio of the benefits OF Interstate
| communication. The court held ad.
versely to this contention. and nd-
Judged the statute not to be unconsttu
tional. 1t says. quoting from another
| of its decisions:
THE authorities (of this court) make
1t clear that the legislative enactments
OF the States, passed under their adj
| United police powers, and having a real
relation to the domestic peace, order,
health and safety of the people, but
which by their necessary operation af-
| feet to some extent, or for a limited
! time, the conduct OF commerce among
the States, are yet not invalid by force
| alone of the grant of power to Congress
to regulate such commerce. and II not
| OBNOXIOUS to some other constitutional
| provision, or destructive OF some right
| secured by the fundamental law, are to
| be respected in the courts OF the Union,
until they are superseded and displaced
by some act of Congress passed in
|
the Constitution. Local laws of the
character mentioned have their source
In the powers which the States reserved
and never surrendered to Congress, OF
| providing for the public health, the
public morals and the public safety,
and are not. within the meaning OF the
Constitution, and considered In their
| own nature. regulations OF Interstate
commerce. simply because for n IImIt-
ed time, or to 4 limited extent, they
cover the field occupied by those en-
gagged in such commerce." And in this
case as to the statute in question ut
establishes rule of civil conduct, ap-
plicable alike to all freight trains, do
nestle as we'll as Interstate. 1t ap-
plies to the transportation OF inter-
State freight the same rule precisely it
applies to the transportation OF domcs-
tic freight. We are OF the opinion that
such law, although in a limited de-
gree affecting Interstate commerce,
Is not for that reason a needless intru-.
sion. upon the domain of Federal juris-
diction nor strictly n regulation of in
ter-State commerce, but, considered In
It's own nature, is an ordinary police
regulation. designed to secure the we'll
being and to promote the general well
fare of the people within the State,
and. therefore, not invalid by the force
alone of the Constitution of the United
| States
The decision goes on to state that not
alone the public safety health and
convenience is included. but also the
public convenience is included In these
/ police powers or. the powers ito make.
ordain and establish all manner Of
wholesome and reasonable laws, sta
tutes and ordinances, either with pen
alties or without, not repugnant to the
Constitution, as they shall Judge to be
for the good and welfare of the Com
monwealth and Of the subjects of the
Same.",