Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-13

u t1lu III opposition 10 the state law
that was attacked in the case, and the
decision adverse to the validity OF that
law seems to be conclusive of the case
here.
The case referred to is the Southern
Steamship Co., &C., VS.. the Masters and
Wardens of the port of New Orleans,
b wall, p. 81; and came before the Su-
preme Court of the United States by
writ of error to the Supreme Court of
louisiana, Vnd involved the validity of
an act OF that State which provided
| that the Masters and Wardens of the
port OF New Orleans should be entitled
10 demand and receive, in addition to
other fees, the sum of So, whether
called on to perform any service or not,
Tor every vessel arriving in that port
| The court held the act to be repugnant
70 the Constitution of the United
States on the grounds that it was such
q regulation of commerce as only Con-
gress could enact. and that 1t was n
| duty on tonnage.
In the body of the opinion, Chief JUS
| tice Chase says: THAT the act of the
Legislature of Louisiana Is n regulation
OF commerce can hardly be doubted. II
imposes Il tax upon every ship entering
the port of New Orleans, and
| works the very mischief against which
the Constitution intended to protect
! commerce among the States" And in
| answer to the argument that the act
| was IN aid of commerce, and that in
direct services were rendered by the
| Masters and Wardens to vessels enter
ing the port Ca view that was strongly
| urged by counsel for the plaintiff in
this case) the Chief Justice saws. "It
may be true that the existence of such
a BODY of men is beneficial to COM
| merce, but the same is true of the gov
eminent OF the State. of the city gov
eminent, of the courts; of the whole
body of public functionaries"
upon the second ground of objection
10 the law. viz: That it constituted n
duty on tonnage, the court says: 1--WE
think also that the tax imposed by the
act OF Louisiana is. in the fair sense
Of the word a duty on tonnage. In
the most obvious and general sense it
IS true those words describe n duty pro
portioned to the tonnage of the vessel;
a certain duty on each ton But II
seems plain that, taken in this re-
strlcted sense, the constitutional provi-
sion would not fully accomplish its in
tent. The general prohibition upon
the States against levying duties on
imports and exports would have been
ineffectual If 1t had not been extended
TO duties on ships. which serve as the
vehicles Of conveyance. This extension
was, doubtless. intended by the prohi-
bition of any duty on tonnage. 1t was
not only a pro rata tax which was pro-
hbited, but any duty on the shin.
whether n fixed sum upon its whole
tonnage. or sum to be ascertained
by comparing the amount of tonnage,
with the rate OF duty" This
view had been already stated
1by Justice Curtis in his opinion
In the earlier case of Cooley
ltE- 1.-1
200, where he says: "It cannot be de-
MED that a tonnage duty may be levied
under the name of pilot fees; and Ger
tainly it Is the thing and not the name
which is to be considered" And our
| own Supreme Court OF Appeals has
adopted the same rule of construction
Tn the case of johnson ct ais VS..
lDrummond, &C.. 20 Graft, 49, Judge
Joynes. rendering the opinion of the
court, after citing the 9th Wallace case,
with apparent approval. Uses this lam
guage: 1T is immatcrial what form
Iof expression is used in describing the
tax or the subject of it, if upon look
ing at its real character and effect II is
found to come within tie meaning of
n duty on tonnage. The question is one
| of substance and not OF form or name"
And further on in his opinion he says:
Nor will it alter the case If the tax is
employed by the State as n necessary
means, or as the best means OF en-
forcing some law which is within it's
constitutional authority. A tonnage
tax is n means prohibited in the States
without the consent of Congress; and
cannot without such consent be en-
ployed for one purpose any more
sion on this point 1t Is interesting
to note that in the case of Harbor
| Commissioners VS.. Pashley, 10 s. Car.
3l5, an imposition placed by Harbor
| Commissioners to defray expenses on
vessels entering the port according to
the length over all" (the precise Ian
guagc of the regulations attacked in
this case) in feet is a tonnage duty
within the prohibition of the Federal
| Constitution.
There does not seem to be any room
for doubt. then, that the regulation
fixing this fec is repugnant to both
the clauses of the Constitution of the
United States above referred to, and
consequently Is invalid.
| 1t may be we'll to observe that 1t Is
not intended to decide that this whole
law Is unconstitutional. The sole ques-
ton decided here is that this particu-
lar regulation adopted by the Harbo,
Commissioners fixing this fee as one oil
the items of compensation OF the
Harbor Masters is invalid IT is also
proper to state that an examination OF
the authorities will tend to sustain the
view that such regulations as provide
compensation for actual services rem
dered will be upheld. as we'll as all reg.
ulations regarding the policing of the
harbor. These questions, however, dc
not arise on the record i'm this case. and
| attention is called to the narrow scope
OF the decision only In order that the