Court Opinion

ID: 9417888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:42:42.610575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:52.326905
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brown,
with whom was
Mr. Justioe Harlan, dissenting.
The power of the several States, in the absence of legislation by Congress on the subject, to establish quarantine regulations, to prohibit the introduction into the State of persons infected *398with disease, or recently exposed to contagion, and to impose a reasonable charge upon vessels subjected to examination at quarantine. stations, is so well settled by repeated decisions of this court as to be no longer open to doubt. This case, however, does not involve that question, bub the broader one, whether, in the assumed exercise of .this power, the legislature may declare certain- portions of the State to be in quarantine, and prohibit the entry therein of all persons whatsoever, whether coming from the United States or foreign countries, from infected or uninfected ports, whether the persons included are diseased or have recently been exposed to contagion, or are perfectly sound and healthjq and coming from ports in which there is nó suspicion of contagious diseases.
•I have no doubt of the power to quarantine all vessels arriving in the Mississippi from foreign ports for a sufficient length of time to enable the health-officers to determine whether there are among her passengers any persons afflicted with a contagious disease. But the State of Louisiana undertakes to do far more than this. It authorizes the state Board of Health at its discretion to “prohibit the.introduction into any infected portion of the State of persons acclimated, unacclimated or said to be immune, when in its judgment the introduction of said persons would add to or increase the prevalence of t-he disease; ” and at its meeting on September 29, 1898, the Board of Health adopted the following resolution:
“ That hereafter, in the case of any town, city or parish of Louisiana being declared in • quarantine, no body or bodies of people, immigrants, soldiers or others shall be allowed to enter said town, city or parish so long as said quarantine shall exist, and that the president of the board shall enforce this resolution.”
In other words, the Board of Health is authorized and as- ' sumes to prohibit in all portions of the State which it chooses to declare in quarantine, the introduction or immigration of all persons from outside the quarantine district, whether infected or uninfected, sick or well, sound or unsound, feeble or healthy; and that, too, not for the few days necessary to establish the sanitary status of such persons, but for an indefinite and possi*399bly permanent period. I think this is not a necessary or proper exercise of the police power, and. falls within that numerous class of cases which hold that States may not, in the assumed exercise of police power, interfere with foreign or interstate commerce.
The only excuse offered for such a wholesale exclusion of immigrants is, as stated by the Supreme Court, “ to keep down, as far as possible, the number of persons to be brought within danger of contagion or infection, and by means of this reduction to accomplish the subsidence and suppression of the disease, and the spread of the same.” In other words, the excuse amounts to this: that the admission, even of healthy persons, adds to the possibility of the contagion being communicated upon the principle of adding fuel to the flame. It does not increase the danger of contagion by adding infected persons to the population, since the bill avers that all the immigrants were healthy and sound. All it could possibly do is to increase the ' number of persons who might become ill- if permitted to be added to the population. This is a danger not to the population, but to the immigrants. It seems to me that this is a possibility toó remote to justify the drastic measure of a total exclusion of all classes of immigrants, and that the opinion of the court is directly in the teeth of Railroad Company v. Eusen, 95 U. -S. 465, wherein a state- statute, which prohibited the driving or conveying of any Texas, Mexican or ¡Indian cattle into the State, between March 1 and November 1 in each year, was held to be in conflict with the commerce clause of the Constitution. Such statute was declared to be more than -a quarantine regulation, and not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State. Said Mr. Justice Strong, page 412: ' “ While we unhesitatingly admit that a State may pass sanitary laws, and laws for the protection of life, liberty, health or -property within its borders; while it may prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases,, or convicts, etc., from entering the State; while for the purpose of self-protection it may-establish quarantine and reasonable inspection laws,. it may not interfere'with the transportation into or through the State, beyond what is absolutely necessary *400rur its seitprotection. It may not under the cover of exerting its police powers substantially prohibit or burden either foreign or interstate commerce.” The statute was held to be a plain intrusion upon thfe exclusive domain of Congress; that it was not a quarantine law; not an inspection law, and was objectionable because it prohibited the introduction of cattle, no matter whether they may do an injury to the inhabitants of a State or not; and if you do bring them in, even for the purpose of carrying them through the State without unloading them, you shall be subject to extraordinary liabilities.” Cases covering the same principle are those of State v. Steamship Constitution, 42 Cal. 578, and City of Bangor v. Smith, 83 Maine, 422.
I am also unable to concur in the construction given in the opinion of the court to the treaty stipulation with France and other foreign powers. The treaty with France of 1803 provides that “ the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nation in the ports above mentioned ” of Louisiana. Article 14 of the treaty with Greece of December 22, . 1837, set -forth in the opinion, provides that vessels arriving directly fróm the Kingdom of Greece at any port of the United States of America, “ and provided with a bill of health granted by an officer having competent power to that effect, at the port whence such vessel shall have sailed, setting forth that no malignant or contagious diseases prevailed in that port, shall be subjected to' no other quarantine than such as may be necessary for the visit of the health officer of the port where such vessel shall have arrived, after which said vessels shall be allowed imniediately to enter and unload their cargoes: Provided always, That there shall* be ón board no person who, during the voyage, shall have been attacked with any malignant or contagious disease; that such vessel shall not, during the passage,-have ' communicated with any vessel liable itself to undergo quarantine, and that the country whence they came, shall, not at that time be so far infected or suspected that, before their arrival, an ordinance had been issued, in consequence of which, all vessels coming from that country should be considered as suspected, and consequently subject to quarantine.”
*401If the law in question in Louisiana, excluding French ships from all access to the port of New Orleans, be not a violation of the provision of the treaty that vessels “ shall be subject to no other quarantine than such as may be necessary for the visit of a health officer of the port, after which such vessels shall be allowed immediately to enter and unload their cargoes,” I am unable to conceive a state of facts which would constitute a violation of that provision.- Necessary as efficient quarantine laws are, I know of-no authority in the States to enact such as are in conflict with our treaties with foreign nations.