ePub 版

1824. only because the powers of Congress have nothing

to say to the carrying of passengers. Gibbons

It may be urged against this train of reasoning, Ogder that Congress has actually législated on the sub

ject of passengers. By the act of the 2d of March, 1819, regulating passenger ships and vessels, the fact is admitted; but, though the humane motives which suggested the law; and its provisions, are laudable, its constitutionality may well be doubted. If Congress has the power to regulate the conveyance of mere passengers, coming by water from foreign countries, it has an equal power to regulate. those coming by land, or passing from one State to another. If that law be constitutional, or if a steam boat, only employed in carrying passengers between New-Jersey and New-York, can come within the jurisdiction of Congress, it must necessarily follow, that Congress has a right (and, indeed, according to the doctrine of our adversaries, is exclusively authorized,) to regulate the number of passengers to be received into every ordinary stage coach, though it does not carry the mail, and the size, shape, description, and kind of diligence, and the kind and number of horses, to be employed in conveying passengers between NewBrunswick and Maine, Vermont and New-York, and througb the State of New Jersey, between New-York and Philadelphia! If this legislation falls under the power to regulate commerce, and that power is exclusive, it must be contended, that pone of the states in which these diligences may travel, have a right to pass any law respecting them! Neither this Court, nor the people of the


United States, are, probably, prepared for the 1824. assertion of that claim. The States have always legislated on a different principle, whether the

Ogdern conveyance of passengers was to be by land or water. Every State has, probably, made numerous provisions on this subject; but, want of time and opportunity has confined research to the statútes of New-York and Georgia.“

a In those States, 1st, as to ferries and bridges : In the lays' of New-York; (3d vol. Webster's ed. p. 321.) an act passed 19th March, 1803, grants to John Ransom the exclusive right, for ten years, to keep a ferry across Lake Champlain, from his landing, at Cumberland Head, to Grand Isle, in Vermont, with a prohibition and penalty against any other person's keeping a ferry, or transporting any persons, goods or chattels, for hire or pay, across the lake, between the point of Cumberland Head and the north point, called Gravelly Point, ion said Cumberland Head. An act passed May 16th, 1810, (6th vol. Websters & Skinner's ed. p. 16.) makes the same grant for ten years more, with the same prohibition and penalties, to Russel Ransom. An act passed May 26th, 1812, (Id. 394.) grants, in the same way, to Peter Deall, and his assigns, to keep a ferry across Lake Champlain, from T'iconderoga to the town of Shoreham, in Vermont, for sixteen years, with a like prohibition and penalties for carrying, &c. from any place on the west shore., within half a mile porth or south of Deall's dwelling house. An act, passed Mareh 28, 1805, (4th vol. same ed. 66.) gives to David Mayo the same right, from his landing, in the said town of Champlain, to Windmill Point, in Vermont, for ten years, with a like prohibition and penalty. An act, passed February 20, 1807, (5th vol. same ed. p: 11.) gives to Peter Steenberg the same right 40 krep, &c. a ferry between the south west point of Carlton Islanıl and the outlet of Lake Ontario, (the high road to Canada,) with the same prohibition and penalty.

In Georgia, by an act of the 14th December, '1809, an exclusive right is given to Joseph Hill, &c. for one hundred years, to erect thrae toll bridges across the Savannah and its branches, (die i

Vat. IX.


It is, however, contended, that the power of regulating commerce is concurrent. This position, indeed, is by no means universally acceded


V. (gden.

viding South Carolina and Georgia,) a little above the city of Savannah, on the road between it and Charleston; and it prohibits any person's erecting a toll bridge across the said river Savannah, up or down it, within five miles of the city. An act of December 6, 1813, authorized John Hill to establish a ferry from Savannah to Proctor's Point, till he has built his bridges. An act of 15th of December, 1809, gives to William Garritt and Le Roy Hammond a right to make a toll bridge, and exact toll, across the Savannah river, from a place on the Georgia side, opposite Campbletown; and to Walter Leigh and Edward Rowell a similar bridge, &c. over the Savannah river, at Augusta. Ap act of December 5, 1800, gives to commissioners the right to establish a ferry over the river Savannah, at Augusta ; the tous to be for the benefit of the academy of Richmond county; which, perhaps, the appel. lant's counsel may think at variance with his position, that no State has a right to derive revenue by tolls on the trade or intercourse between two States. The same law prohibits any other ferry or bridge between Williams' ferry, opposite Fort Moore's bluff, and Ray's ferry, opposite Campbletown. An act of 6th of December, 1813, gives a ferry across the Savannah, to Ezekiel Dubze; and another is given to Zachariah Bowman and Daniel Tucker. An act, passed 9th of November, 1814, on the express ground of facilitating intercourse with South Carolina, gives to Joho M-Kinne and Henry Shultz, for twenty years, an exclusive right to a toll bridge over the Savannah, from Augusta, or within four miles thereof; and prohibits the establishing of any other toll bridge over the Savannah, from Augusta, or within four miles above or below the city.

2. As to stages. In the laws of New York, an act, passed March 30, 1798, (4th vol. Loring & Andrews' ed p. 399.) grants to Alexander J. Turner and Adonijah Skinner, an exclusive right for five years, of running stages between Lansingburgh and the town of Hampton, in the county of Washington, (i. e. to Vermont, or the road through it to Canada.) An act, passed February 26, 1803, (3d vol. Webster's ed. p. 322.) grants to T. Donally and

Judge Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone," 1824. ranks among the powers cxclusively granted to the federal government, the power to regulate



others, the exclusive right, for seven years, of the same kind, from the city of Albany to the north boundary line of the State of New Jersey. An act, passed April 6, 1807, (5th vol. Websters & Skinner's ed. p. 186.) grants to John Metcalf the exclusive right, for seven years, of running stage wagons between the village of Canandaigua and the village of Buffalo, (i.e. the road by lake Erie to Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.)

In Georgia, an act of November 23, 1802, gives to Nathaniel Twining, &c. for ten years, the sole and exclusive right of run., ning a line of stage carriages between the city of Savannah and town of St. Marys, (on the borders of Florida.). Şec. 2, gives to him an exclusive right of conveying passengers and their baggage, by water, between Darien and St. Marys, (a coasting trade between two ports of entry, if carrying passengers be a branch of trade,) till a post road is established. An act of December 7th, 1812, gives to William Dunham the right of running stage carriages as above. Add to these, the decision of Perrins v. Sikes, in 1802, ( Day's Connect. Rep. in Err. p. 19.) that a grant by the General Assembly, of an exclusive privilege to carry passengers by the stage, on the post road leading to Boston, as far as the Massachusetts line, vas valid, which may be added as another legal decision on the constitutionality of those laws. Indeed, as to the regulation of passengers arriving in ships from foreign parts, some of the States have exercised, at least, concurrent power. Of that kind is the act of the State of New York, (2 N. R. L. 440.) and Nero Jersey. has passed a similar law on 10th of February, 1819. (Justice's ed. N. J. Laws, 655.) So also in Massachusetts, (2 Mass. Laws, 629.) by an act of February, 1794, masters of vessels coming from abroad, are required to report passengers, &c. And in Delaware, (2 Laws of Del. ed. 1797, by S. & J. Adams, c. 134. p. 1354.) an act to prevent insectious diseases, passed 24th of January, 1797, (sec. 5.) enacts, that no master, &c. of any ship bound to any port of that State, shall bring or import any greater

n Vol. 1. Part 1. App. D. p. 180.




commerce, &c. the commerce between the indi-, viduals of the same State being reserved to the State governments, And be repeats the doctrine,“ on the very untenable ground, that the regulation of commerce is not susceptible of a concurrent exercise: a doctrine which a review of State laws will show to be contrary to fact and experience. The opposite doctrine is strongly supported by Kent, Ch. J. in Livingston v. Van Ingen,' as the only safe and practicable rule of conduct, and the true constitutional rule, arising from the federal system. And it is the only safe

number of passengers and servants than shall be well provided and supplied with good and wholesome meat, drink, and other necessaries, particularly vinegar, as well to wash and cleanse the vessel, as for the use of the persons on board, during the voyage; and it directs the size of each birth, &c.; and that if any master shall offerd, &c. he shall førseit 600 dollars for every such offence. Sec. 7, enacts, that every master, &c. shall pay to the physician who boards his ship, six cents for every person he shall import or land in that State, which he is thereby authorized to recover from such

passengers and ervants respectively; and the physician shall pay over the moneys so received, to the treasurer of the trustees of the poor in his county. Here is another instance inconsistent with the position of the appellant's counsel, (if carrying passengers be trading,) that a State has no right to raise a tax or revenue by foreign trade. By another act of that State, passed February 3, 1802, the reaster or owner is required to give bond, that the person so imported and landed, shall not become chargeable. If the regulation of passengers belong to commerce, and that exclusively, (as it must, if the power to regulate commerce be exclusive,) by what authority can a State Court issue a ne exeat against a trader or merchant about to leave the State ?

a P. 309.
6 9 Johas. Rep. 577, 578.

« 上一頁繼續 »