Source: https://openjurist.org/107/us/38
Timestamp: 2018-07-21 08:17:43
Document Index: 684853682

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 18', '§ 3', '§ 9', '§ 17', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 7', '§ 16', '§ 18', '§ 16', '§ 4', '§ 44', '§ 50', '§ 85', '§ 86', '§ 167', '§ 14', '§ 19', '§ 1562', '§ 1573', '§ 28', '§ 22', '§ 34', '§ 50', '§ 53', '§ 54', '§ 1832', '§ 26', '§ 1', '§ 949', '§ 391', '§ 4300', '§ 4327', '§ 4293', '§ 4291', '§ 4285', '§ 4281', '§ 2', '§ 21', '§ 5', '§ 309', '§ 352', '§ 360', 'art. 96', '§ 20']

107 U.S. 38 - Turner v. State of Maryland
In order to determine whether the statutory provisions in question are obnoxious to the objection made, their meaning must be ascertained. The act of 1864 requires the inspector to examine the hogshead to ascertain whether it is of the required dimensions, and then to inspect the tobacco itself by sampling the contents, and when this has been done, and the weight ascertained, the hogshead is passed. In regard to the addition made by the act of 1870, chapter 291, to section 41 of the act of 1864, the grower or purchaser of tobacco, packed in the county or neighborhood where it is grown, is permitted to export the same without having the hogshead opened for inspection by sampling its contents; but the act requires such hogshead to be marked with the name and residence of the owner, and it is made liable to the charge of outage as in other cases, and any one violating its provisions is subject to the penalty imposed by section 41 of the act of 1864. The act of 1870, in thus permitting the grower or purchaser of tobacco packed in the county or neighborhood where it is grown, to export the same without having the hogshead opened for inspection, does not dispense with any other requirement of the act of 1864 in regard to inspection. It provides, in express terms, that each hogshead thus packed shall be marked with the name and residence of the owner. It is necessary, therefore, that some one shall ascertain whether these requirements have been complied with, and whether the tobacco was, in fact, the growth of the county or neighborhood where it was packed. It also requires that such tobacco shall be liable to the same charge of outage as in other cases; and, as the charge of outage depends upon the weight of the hogshead, it is necessary that some one shall ascertain the weight of such hogshead, in order to determine the amount to be paid. It does not change, or in any manner dispense with, the statutory requirements in regard to the dimensions of the hogshead in which such tobacco is to be packed, and it is necessary that some one shall see that these requirements are complied with. These and other duties, it is obvious, are to be performed by the inspectors, and when they are performed the hogshead is to be passed and marked as provided by the act of 1864. When the words 'such tobacco so exported or carried out of this state without inspection' are read in connection with the preceding sentence, which permits the grower or purchaser to export such tobacco 'without having the same opened for inspection,' it is clear that the term 'without inspection' refers to inspection by opening the hogshead and sampling the contents.
The act of 1872, c. 36, changes some of the provisions of the act of 1864, omits others, and in express terms repeals all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions. The penal clause of the act of 1864, as amended by the act of 1870, which makes it unlawful to carry out of the state in hogsheads tobacco raised in the state, except in hogsheads inspected, passed, and marked according to the provisions of the act, is omitted in the act of 1872; but there is nothing, either in the title or the general frame-work of the act, or in the manner in which the subject-matter is dealt with, to justify the conclusion that the legislature intended the act of 1872 as a substitute for all prior legislation on the subject. The provisions of such prior laws are essential to give completeness to the system of which the act of 1872 is but a part. That does not, it is true, make it unlawful to export tobacco raised in the state unless the same shall have been inspected and passed, but it does provide that no tobacco, the growth of the state, shall be passed or accounted lawful tobacco unless the same be packed in hogsheads of certain prescribed dimensions. It does not say, in so many words, that the tobacco raised in the state and intended for exportation shall be delivered at one of the state tobacco warehouses; but it does provide for the appointment of inspectors of tobacco, clerks, and other officials, with fixed salaries, and assigns them to the tobacco werehouses, with no duty to perform unless it be the inspection of tobacco. In thus declaing that no tobacco, the growth of the state, shall be accounted lawful tobacco unless packed in the manner prescribed by the act, it is plain the legislature meant it to be the duty of the inspectors appointed by the act to ascertain whether such tobacco was thus packed in conformity with the requirements of the statute, and this they could not do unless such tobacco should be delivered at the state tobacco warehouses.
The legislature meant, and only meant, to select certain provisions from the public local law in relation to the inspection of tobacco, and to re-enact these in a public general law, and to leave such portion of the local law which it did not thus re-enact, and did not modify or repeal by inconsistent provisions, as existing parts of the local law. The act of 1872 did not modify or repeal section 41 of the act of 1864, as modified by the act of 1870, which constituted part of the local law; and under that section it was the duty of the plaintiff in error to have delivered the tobacco packed by him at one of the state tobacco warehouses, in order that the inspectors might ascertain whether it was packed in hogsheads of the proper dimensions, and whether it was packed in the county or neighborhood where it was grown, and marked as the statute directed. The legislature did not intend that merely marking the name of the grower or purchaser on the hogshead should release such grower or purchaser from the other requirements of the act. These views are those which were held by the court of appeals of Maryland in its opinion delivered in this case. 55 Md. 240. The result is that all that the act of 1870 does in regard to a grower or purchaser of tobacco raised in Maryland, who packs the same in hogsheads in the county or neighborhood where such tobacco is grown, and who exports it or carries it out of the state, is to dispense with the opening of such hogsheads for inspection, but that it does not dispense with any other requirement of the act of 1864 in regard to inspection; and that it is a part of such inspection for the inspector to see that the hogshead is marked with the name and place of residence of the owner, and to verify the claimed fact that the tobacco was raised in Maryland and packed in the county or neighborhood where it was grown, and to weigh the hogshead in order to determine the charge for outage, and to see that the hogshead conforms in dimensions to the requirement of the statute, so that the tobacco may be passed and accounted lawful tobacco. It is also apparent that not until the above and other duties have been performed by the inspectors can the hogshead be passed and marked as required by the act of 1864. This requires, in regard to the hogsheads specially mentioned in the proviso enacted in 1870 to section 41 of the act of 1864, that they be delivered at one of the state tobacco warehouses, and that the provisions of section 10 of the act of 1864 be observed; that is, that the inspector shall number each hogshead in succession, and enter the number in a book, with the time the hogshead is received, and the name, if known, of the conveyance by which it was brought to Baltimore, and the name of the owner or consignee of the tobacco, and the initials or other marks on the hogshead identifying it, and, on its removal, enter in a book the time of removal and the name of the person to whom it is delivered, and of the conveyance by which it is taken away; that, under section 12 of the act of 1864, it shall be inspected in all required particulars except opening it; that, under section 13 of that act, the inspector shall weigh the hogshead unopened and enter such weight in a book, with sufficient reference to its marks and numbers as previously recorded; that, under section 14 of that act, the inspector shall mark with a marking iron, on the side of each hogshead, its warehouse number and weight, and on each head its warehouse number; and that not until these things have been bone is the tobacco to be passed or accounted as lawful tobacco.
The plaintiff in error contends that section 41 of the act of 1864, as re-enacted by the act of 1870, violates the constitution of the United States, because (1) it is a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, and a law levying a duty on exports, and does not fall within the class of laws known as inspection laws, because the proviso enacts that the tobacco to which it refers need not be opened for inspection; (2) said section, even though it is an inspection statute, discriminates against the non-resident buyer and manufacturer of leaf tobacco, and in favor of the state buyer and manufacturer, in imposing burdensome regulations on tobacco intended for export, and laying a tax of at least two dollars a hogshead on such tobacco when exported, while tobacco manufactured within the state is free from such regulations and such tax, and thus it discriminates against interstate and foreign commerce in tobacco, and in favor of local manufacturers and the internal trade of the state; (3) said section discriminates between different classes of exporters of tobacco, in that it permits tobacco exported by persons who pack it in the county or neighborhood where it is grown, to be exported when marked with the full name and residence of the owner, without inspection other than the examination of the outsides of the hogsheads, while exporters of another class must have the contents of their hogsheads subjected to examination.
The Maryland court held that the charge of outage in this case was an inspection duty, within the meaning of the constitution; that the state had the power to prescribe the dimensions of the hogshead in which tobacco raised in Maryland shall be packed, and to require such hogshead to be delivered at one of the state tobecco warehouses, in order that the inspectors may ascertain whether it conforms to the requirements of the law, and whether it is the true growth of the state, and packed by the grower or purchaser in the county or neighborhood where it was grown; and that the charge of outage, to reimburse the state for the expenses thereby incurred, and in consideration of storage of the hogshead, is in the nature of an inspection duty, within the meaning of the constitution.
The contention of the plaintiff in error is that a law which otherwise would be an inspection law ceases to be such if no provision is made for opening the package containing the article and examining the quality of its contents. On this subject the Maryland court held that, in order to constitute an inspection law, an examination of the quality of the article itself is not necessary, but that to prepare the products of a state for exportation it may be necessary that such products should be put in packages of a certain form, and of certain prescribed dimensions, either on account of the nature and character of such products, or to enable the state to identify the products of its own growth, and to furnish the evidence of such identification in the markets to which they are exported. In opposition to these views, which appear to us to be sound, we are asked to hold that the provisions under consideration do not fall under the head of inspection laws, in a case where the question is presented without any finding of any facts to show that what may be thus necessary in regard to a product is not necessary in regard to tobacco, and with every presumption to the contrary arising out of the course of legislation, as to the inspection of tobacco, by the state of Maryland. The legislature of the state of Maryland, from the earliest history of the colony and since the formation of the state government, has made the inspection of tobacco raised in that state compulsory. That inspection has included many features, and has extended to the form, size, and weight of the packages containing the tobacco, as well as to the quality of the article. Fixing the identity and weight of tobacco alleged to have been grown in the state, and thus preserving the reputation of the article in markets outside of the state, is a legitimate part of inspection laws, and the means prescribed therefor in the statutes in question naturally conduce to that end. Such provisions, as parts of inspection laws, are as proper as provisions for inspecting quality, and it cannot be said that the absence of the latter provisions, in respect to any particular class of tobacco, necessarily causes the laws containing the former provisions to cease to be inspection laws.
It is easy to see that the use of the precaution of weighing and marking the weight on the hogshead and recording it in a book is to enable it to be determined at any time whether the contents have been diminished subsequently to the original packing, by comparing a new weight with the original marked weight, or, if the marked weight be altered, with the weight entered into the warehouse book. The things required to be done in respect to the hogshead of tobacco in the present case, aside from any inspection of quality, are to be done to prepare and fit the hogshead, as a unit, containing the tobacco, for exportation, and for becoming an article of foreign commerce or commerce among the states, and are to be done before it becomes such an article. They are properly parts of inspection laws, within the definition given by this court in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203. In a note to the argument of Mr. Emmet in that case, at page 119, are collected references to many statutes of the states, in the form of inspection laws, showing what features have been generally recognized as falling within the domain of those laws—such as the size of barrels or casks, and the number of hoops on them; what pieces of beef or pork, and what quantity and size of nails, should be in one cask; the length, breadth, and thickness of staves and heading, lumber, boards, shingles, etc.; and the branding of pot and pearl ashes, flour, fish, and lumber, and the forfeiture of them, if unbranded. These were cited as instances of the exercise by states of the power to act upon an article grown or produced in a state, before it became an article of foreign or domestic commerce, or of commerce among the states, to prepare it for such purpose. It was in reference to laws of this character that it was said, in argument, in Gibbons v. Ogden, that the enactments seemed arbitrary, and were not founded on the idea that the things, the exportation of which was thus prohibited or restrained, were dangerous or noxious, but had for their object to improve foreign trade, and raise the character and reputation of the articles in a foreign market. It was in reference to such laws, among other inspection laws, that Chief Justice MARSHALL, in Gibbons v. Ogden, (page 203,) after remarking that a power to regulate commerce was not the source from which a right to pass inspection laws was derived, said:
The following are the acts, and the subjects in reference to which they were passed. New Hampshire: Casks of flaxseed, 1785. See Perpetual Laws of New Hampshire, 1789, p. 193. Dimensions of shingles, staves, and hoops. Id. p. 188. Massachusetts: Shingles, staves, and hoops. Acts and Resolves of the Province of Mass. Bay, vol. 3, [1742-1756,] p. 128 et seq. c. 22. Size of casks for pickled fish. Id. p. 1000. Act of 1757. Rhode Island: Regulating the inspection of beef, pork, pickled fish, and tobacco, and ascertaining the assize of casks, clapboards, shingles, boards, etc. Public Laws of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, (Ed. 1789,) pp. 509, 512, 522. Connecticut: St. Conn. (Ed. 1786.) For ascertaining the assize of casks used for liquor, beef, pork, and fish. Pages 18, 312. There were sworn packers of tobacco, whose duty it was to brand casks. New York: Laws, (Ed. 1789.) All flour for exportation to be packed in casks of a certain size and make. No flour to be exported without having been inspected. 1785, c. 35, p. 197. No pot or pearl ashes to be exported before inspection. New Jersey: Capacity of meat barrels. Act of April 6, 1676. Leaming and Spicer, p. 116. Capacity of barrels, Id. 120; bricks, Id. 459; barrels, Id. 508. Assize of bread, Id. 545, 546, 547. Size of casks, Act of 1725. Staves, hoops, shingles, etc., Act of September 26, 1772. Size of casks, Act of September 26, 1772. Pennsylvania: Laws of Penn. A. J. Dallas, 1797. Dimensions of casks for beer, ale, pork, beef, etc., p. 27 et seq. Dimensions of staves, headings, boards, and timber, Id. 380. showing, by the text of the inspection laws of the 13 American colonies and states, in force in 1787, when the constitution of the United States was adopted, that the form, capacity, dimensions, and weight of packages were objects of inspection, irrespective of the quality of the contents of the packages. The instances embrace, among others, the dimensions of shingles, staves, and hoops; the size of casks and barrels for fish, pork, beef, pitch, tar, and turpentine, and the size of hogsheads of tobacco. In Maryland the dimensions of tobacco hogsheads were fixed by various statutes passed from the year 1658 to the year 1763. By the act of 1763, c. 18, § 18, it was enacted that all tobacco packed in hogsheads exceeding 48 inches in the length of the stave, and 70 inches in the the croze and bulge, should the croze and bulge, or received. be accounted unlawful tobacco, and should not be passed or received. Like provisions, fixing the dimensions of hogsheads of tobacco, have been in force in Maryland from 1789 till now.
In view of such legislation existing at the time the constitution of the United States was adopted and ratified by the original states, known to the framers of the constitution who came from the various states, and called 'inspection laws' in those states, it follows that the constitution, in speaking of 'inspection laws,' included such laws, and intended to reserve to the states the power of continuing to pass such laws, even though to carry them out and make them effective, in preventing the exportation from the state of the various commodities, unless the provisions of the laws were observed, it became necessary to impose charges which amounted to duties or imposts on exports to an extent absolutely necessary to execute such laws. The general sense in which the power of the states in this respect has been understood since the adoption of the constitution, is shown by the legislation of the states since that time, as collected in like manner by the attorney general of Maryland,b covering the
Pennsylvania: Beef and pork intended for exportation, when packed, or repacked, in Philadelphia: 1 Brightly's Purdon's Digest, 1873, pp. 157, 158; butter and lard, Id. 188, 189; domestic distilled spirits, Id. 525; flaxseed, Id. 708; flour and meal, Id. 711. Delaware: Size of casks for exportation of breadstuffs. Rev. St. 1874, p. 363. Virginia: Tobacco, Code 1873, pp. 739, 740; fish, Id. 750; pitch, tar, turpentine, salt, stayes, shingles, and lumber, Id. 751. Rhode Island: Pub. St. 1882; beef and pork casks, c. 3, p. 294; lime casks, Id. 298; fish casks, Id. c. 114, p. 299. Maine: Rev. St. 1871; lime, c. 39, § 3; pot and pearl ashes, Id. § 9; nails, Id. § 17; fish, Id. c. 40, §§ 7, 8, and 11; cord-wood, Id. c. 41, § 1; charcoal baskets, Ic. § 7; packed shingles, Id. § 16; staves and hoops, Id. §§ 18 and 19; beef and pork barrels, Id. c. 38, §§ 16 and 17. New Hampshire: Gen. Laws 1878. No salted beef to be exported except in tierces, barrels, or half-barrels of particular quality, weight, and dimensions, and duly branded; c. 126, §§ 4 and 5; butter and lard casks, c. 127, p. 305; fish barrels, tierces, and casks, c. 129, p. 310; casks of pot and pearl ashes, c. 130, p. 114. Massachusetts: Gen. St. 1860; casks for pickled fish, c. 49, § 44; alewives, Id. § 50; staves, Id. § 85; hogshead hoops, Id. § 86; casks for pot and pearl ashes, Id. § 167; kegs for butter and lard, Id. § 14. Connecticut: Gen. St. 1875; fish barrels, p. 275, § 19. Vermont: Rev. Laws of 1880, p. 715, barrels of flour, weight, etc. New Jersey: Revision 1877; beef and pork barrels, flour and meal casks, Id. 437; herring casks, Id. 478. Georgia: Code 1867; flour barrels, § 1562; turpentine barrles, Id. § 1573. Louisiana: Digest of Statutes, vol. 2, 1870; beef and pork barrels, p. 38, § 28. Wisconsin: Statutes of; fish casks, p. 856, § 22. Michigan: Comp. Laws 1871, vol. 1, pp. 474-485, size and weight of beef, pork, and fish barrels; butter and lard barrels; flour and meal casks; pot and pearl ash casks. South Carolina: Gen. St.; flour barrels, p. 275; beef barrels, Id. 279; staves and shingles, Id. 280. North Carolina: Battle's Revisal; flour barrels, c. 61, § 34, p. 496; beef or pork casks, Id. § 50, p. 499; fish barrels, Id. § 53, p. 499; turpentine, tar, and pitch barrels, Id. § 54, p. 500. Tennessee: Statutes 1871; butter or lard casks, § 1832; flour barrels, 1834. Florida: Digest of Laws, 1881, p. 579; sizes of tar and turpentine barrels. form, capacity, dimensions, and weight of packages containing articles grown or produced in a state and intended for exportation. These laws are none the less inspection laws because, as was said by this court in Gibbons v. Ogden, they 'may have a remote and considerable influence on commerce.' It is a circumstance of weight that the laws referred to in the constitution are by it made 'subject to the revision and control of the congress.' Congress may, therefore, interpose, if at any time any statute, under the guise of an inspection law, goes beyond the limit prescribed by the constitution in imposing duties or imposts on imports ports or exports. These and kindred laws of Maryland have been in force for a long term of years, and there has been no such interposition.
Objection is made that the Maryland laws are not inspection laws, but are regulations of commerce, because they require every hogshead of tobacco to be brought to a state tobacco warehouse. But we are of opinion that, it being lawful to require the article to be subjected to the prescribed examination by a public officer before it can be accounted a lawful subject of commerce, it is not foreign to the character of an inspection law to require that the article shall be brought to the officer instead of sending the officer to the article. It is a matter as to which the state has a reasonable discretion, and we are unable to see that such discretion has been exercised in any such manner as to carry the statutes beyond the scope of inspection laws.
As is suggested in Neilson v. Garza, 2 Woods, 287, by Mr. Justice BRADLEY, it may be doubtful whether it is not exclusively the province of congress, and not at all that of a court, to decide whether a charge or duty, under an inspection law, is or is not excessive. There is nothing in the record from which it can be inferred that the state of Maryland intended to make its tobacco-inspection laws a mere cover for laying revenue duties upon exports. The case is not like that of Jackson Mining Co. v. Auditor General, 32 Mich. 488, where a state tax imposed on mineral ore exported from the state before being smelted was held to be a tax on interstate commerce, no such tax being imposed on like ore reduced within the state. The question of the right of Maryland, under the constitution of the United States, to require that the dimensions and gross weight of a hogshead containing tobacco grown upon its soil shall be ascertained by its officers before the tobacco shall be exported, is a question of law, because the question is as to whether such law is an inspection law. Moreover, the question as to whether the charges for such examination and its attendant duties are 'absolutely necessary,' was not before the state court, and was not passed upon by it, and cannot be considered by this court.
It is urged, however, that the Mayland law is a regulation of commerce and unconstitutional, because it discriminates between the state buyer and manufacturer of leaf tobacco and the purchaser who buys for the purpose of transporting the tobacco to another state or to a foreign country. But the state, having the right to prescribe the form, dimensions, and capacity of the packages in which its products shall be encased before they are brought to, or sold in, the public market, has enacted (Laws 1872, c. 36, § 26) that no tobacco of the growth of the state shall be passed or accounted lawful tobacco unless it be packed in hogsheads of a specified size. This regulation covers all tobacco grown in the state and packed in hogsheads, without reference to the purpose for which it is packed. If the tobacco is to be dealt in within the limits of the state, the examination as to dimensions is properly left to the contracting parties, probably under the view that the seller for the home market will have a sufficient stimulus to observe the requirement of the law in a desire to maintain the reputation of his commodity. But if the tobacco is to be exported as lawful tobacco, the state may, with equal propriety, prescribe and enforce an examination by an officer, within the state, of a hogshead containing tobacco grown in the state and intended for shipment beyond the limits of the state, in order to ascertain, before the hogshead is carried out of the state, and before it becomes an article of commerce, that it is of the dimensions prescribed as necessary to make it lawful tobacco.
In Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299, a law of Pennsylvania provided that a vessel not taking a pilot should pay half pilotage, but that this should not apply to American vessels engaged in the Pennsylvania coal trade. It was held that the general regulation as to half pilotage was proper, and that the exemption was a fair exercise of legislative discretion acting upon the subject of the regulation of the pilotage of the port of Philadelphia. The court said that, in making pilotage regulations, the legislative discretion had been constantly exercised, in this and other countries, in making discriminations, founded on differences both in the character of the trade and in the tonnage of vessels engaged therein. Any discrimination appearing in the present case is of the same character as that in the pilotage case, and fairly within the discretion of the state. Such discretion reasonably extends to exempting from opening for internal inspection an article grown in the state, when it is marked with the name of an ascertained owner, and to requiring that an article grown in the state shall be opened for internal inspection when it is not intended to be put on the market on the credit of an ascertained owner and is not identified by marks as owned by him. So, too, in the exercise of the same discretion, and of its power to prescribe the method in which its products shall be fitted for exportation, it may direct that a certain product, while it remains 'in the bosom of the country' and before it has become an article 'of foreign commerce or of commerce between the states,' shall be incased in such a package as appears best fitted to secure the safety of the package and to identify its contents as the growth of the state, and may direct that the weight of the package, and the name of the owner of its contents, shall be plainly marked on the package, and may also exempt the contents from inspection as to quality, when the weight of the package and the name of the owner are duly ascertained to be marked thereon. Such a law is an inspection law, and may be executed by imposing a 'tax or duty of inspection,' which tax, so far as it acts upon articles for exportation, is an exception to the prohibition on the states against laying duties on exports, the exception being made because the tax would otherwise be within the prohibition. Brown v. State, 12 Wheat. 419, 438. At the same time we fully recognize the principle that any inspection law is subject to the paramount right of congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.
In this case no inspection is involved except that of tobacco grown in Maryland, and we must not be understood as expressing any opinion as to any provisions of the Maryland laws which refer to the inspection of tobacco grown out of Maryland.
Flour casks,—how to be made and dimensions of,—Id. p. 452; Act of 1781, c. 201. Maryland: Gauge of barrels for pork, beef, pitch, tar, turpentine, and tare of barrels for flour or bread, 1745, c. 15. Flour barrels, 1771, c. 20; 1781, c. 12. Staves and headings, 1745, c. 15; 1771, c. 20; 1786, c. 17. Salted provisions, 1745, c. 15; 1786, c. 17. Hay and straw, 1771, c. 20. Flour, 1781, c. 12. Fish, 1786, c. 17. Liquor casks, 1774, c. 23; 1777, c. 17; 1784, c. 83; 1785, c. 87. Many other Maryland provincial laws, prescribing the length, superficial and solid measure, weight and capacity of domestic products, are collected on pages 45-47 of the report of Mr. J. H. Alexander on the standards of weight and measurement in Maryland. Virginia: Laws of Va. Revisal 1783, pp. 47, 188, 192. Pork, etc. required to be packed in barrels before exportation. As to contents, quality, and stamps of barrels of pork, beef, pitch, tar, and turpentine, see Id. p. 47; Act of 1776, c. 43. Inspection of tobacco, and size of tobacco hogsheads. Act of 1783, c. 10, §§ 1, 15, 20. North Carolina: Ired. Laws (N. C.) Ed. 1791. Dimensions of beef, pork and fish casks, staves and headings, and of boards, planks and shingles. Act 1784, c. 36. South Carolina: Grimke's Public Laws. Dimensions and capacity of beef and pork barrels, p. 209. Georgia: Watkins' Digest. Casks for beef and pork. Size of barrels for pitch, tar, and turpentine. Act of 1766, No. 140, amended by act of 1768, No. 179. In the legislation of the province and state of Maryland, in reference to tobacco, the dimensions, or gauge, of tobacco hogsheads was fixed by the Acts of 1658, c. 2, 1676, c. 9, 1694, c. 5, 1699, c. 4, 1704, c. 53, 1711, c. 5, 1715, c. 38, 1716, c. 8, 1717, c. 7, 1723, c. 25, 1747, c. 26, 1753, c. 22, 1763, c. 18, and 1789, c. 26.
Mississippi: Flour and pork barrels; Rev. Code 1880, § 949, p. 280. Ohio: Rev. St. 1880, vol. 1; hogsheads of tobacco, p. 264, § 391; fish barrels, Id. § 4300; spirit barrels, § 4327; oil barrels, § 4293; pot and pearl ash barrels, § 4291; beef or pork barrels, § 4285; flour and meal barrels, § 4281.
The legislation of Maryland, since 1787, affords the following instances: Pot and pearl ashes, intended for exportation from Baltimore, or Georgetown, Montgomery county, were required to be packed in a particular manner in casks, and to be inspected and weighed. 1792, c. 65. A similar provision was made to prevent the exportation of unmerchantable flour and unsound salted provisions from Havre de Grace, by the act of 1796, c. 21; and from Chester, by the act of 1797, c. 7. By the act of 1781, c. 12, provision was made to prevent the exportation of bread and flour, which were not merchantable, from the town of Havre de Grace. This act was enacted for a limited time only and expired. It was revived and enacted into a permanent law by the act of 1801, c. 102, § 2, and is set forth in a note to the section last referred to, in the acts of 1801. By section 6 of the act of 1801, c. 102, the size of all flour casks brought to Baltimore town for exportation, the character of the materials and make, the manner of hooping and nailing such hoops, the particular length of the staves, the diameter of the casks at the heads, and the number of pounds of flour to be in each cask, are specifically prescribed. The size of laths, and the mode of packing them, was regulated by the act of 1811, c. 69. The number and character of hoops upon casks of ground black oak bark, exported from the port of Baltimore, was prescribed by the act of 1821, c. 77. The gross weight of a hogshead of tobacco, as well as its net weight, was required to be marked on the hogshead by the act of 1789, c. 26, § 21. The dimensions of the hogsheads in which tobacco was required to be packed was prescribed by section 35 of the act last cited. Further illustration may be found in the following legislation: Weighing wheat, 1858, c. 256, § 5; Frazier v. Warfield, 13 Md. 300-304; fish barrels and tierces, Public Local Laws, article 4, § 309; flour, Id. § 352; domestic distilled liquors, Id. § 360; flour barrels, 1 Md. Code, art. 96, § 20.