Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

follows that it may not, in its exercise, derogate from the similar authority of another State. The state power can extend only to the transactions within its own territory and the ferriage from its own shore. It follows that the fact that rates were fixed by New York did not preclude New Jersey from establishing reasonable rates with respect to the ferry establishment maintained on its side.

With respect to the rates for round trips, we do not construe the ordinance as requiring the company to issue round-trip tickets at its office in New Jersey. We may not look into the testimony and it does not appear that such a construction has been placed upon the ordinance by the state court. Viewed as a limitation upon rates charged for such round-trip tickets, when sold by the company in New Jersey, we think that the ordinance is valid being one relating to the transactions of the company in New Jersey and the charges there enforced. Whether it would be competent for the State, through the local board, to require the company to issue roundtrip tickets, is a question not presented by the record, and we express no opinion upon it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE v. INTERNATIONAL TRANSIT COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

No. 323. Argued March 20, 1914.—Decided June 8, 1914.

A State may not make commercial intercourse with another State or a foreign country a matter of local privilege and require that it cannot be carried on without its consent, and to exact a license fee as the price of that consent.

Argument for Appellants.

234 U. S.

Transportation between States and foreign countries is within the protection of the constitutional grant to Congress, and this includes transportation by ferry. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196.

One otherwise enjoying full capacity for the purpose of carrying on interstate or foreign commerce cannot be compelled to take out a local license for the mere privilege of carrying it on.

An ordinance enacted by the city of Sault Ste. Marie under state authority, requiring a license fee for the operation of ferries to the Canadian shore opposite, held unconstitutional, as applied to the owners of a ferryboat plying from the Canadian shore, as a burden on interstate commerce.

Quare, whether such an ordinance is void as violative of Article I of the Treaty of 1909 with Great Britain.

194 Fed. Rep. 522, reversed.

THE facts, which involve the right of the State, or a municipality acting under its authority, to establish ordinances regulating maintenance of ferries between its ports and one of a foreign government and the construction of the treaty of 1909 with Great Britain, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. John W. Shine, with whom Mr. F. T. McDonald was on the brief, for appellants:

The ordinance is not invalid as in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution.

A ferry is in respect to the landing and not on the water. The point of departure is the seat, the base, the home of the ferry. Conway v. Taylor, 1 Bl. 603; Louisville Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U. S. 385, 394; Memphis v. Overton, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 387, 390; State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122; Powers v. Athens, 99 N. Y. 592.

Ferries are local in their nature and the regulation of ferries is a matter of local concern. Chilvers v. People, 11 Michigan, 51; St. Clair County v. Interstate Sand Co., 192 U. S. 454.

In all local matters state statutes are valid until superseded by act of Congress. Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12

234 U.S.

Argument for Appellants.

How. 310; Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 702; Atlantic &c. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160; Bowman v. Railroad Co., 125 U. S. 465, 507; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100; Stoughtenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141; Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444; Robbins v. Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489; Wabash Railway v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557; Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455; Cardwell v. Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205, 210; Willoughby's Fed. Const., § 309.

The privilege of keeping a ferry over boundary streams with the right to take tolls for passengers and property is grantable by the State. Gloucester Ferry Case, 114 U. S. 196, 217; State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122; Ferry Co. v. Russell, 52 W. Va. 356; Cross v. Hopkins, 6 W. Va. 323; Carroll v. Campbell, 108 Missouri, 550; State v. Sickmann, 65 Mo. App. 499; Tugwell v. Eagle Pass Ferry Co., 74 Texas, 480; Parsons v. Hunt, 98 Texas, 420; Nixon v. Reid, 8 So. Dak. 507; Hatten v. Turnman 123 Kentucky, 844.

The right to establish and regulate ferries over boundary streams is among the powers reserved to the State. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; In re Young, Fed. Cas. No. 18,150; Memphis v. Overton, 11 Tennessee (3 Yerg.), 387; People v. Babcock, 11 Wend. 587; Jones v. Fanning, 1 Morris, 348; Mills v. St. Clair Co., 7 Illinois, 197, 225, aff'd 8 How. 569; Phillips v. Bloomington, 1 G. Greene, 498; Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524; Chosen Freeholders v. State, 24 N. J. Law, 718; Newport v. Taylor, 16 B. Mon. 699; Chispella v. Brown, 14 La. Ann. 185; Minturn v. LaRue, 23 How. 435; Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black, 603; Chilvers v. People, 11 Michigan, 43; Marshall v. Grimes, 41 Mississippi, 27; Burlington v. Davis, 48 Iowa, 133; St. Louis v. Waterloo Ferry Co., 14 Mo. App. 216; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365; Tugwell v. Eagle Pass Ferry, 9 S. W. Rep. 120; S. C., 13 S. W. Rep. 654; Madison v. Abbott, 118 Indiana, 337; Carroll v. Camp

Argument for Appellants.

234 U. S.

bell, 108 Missouri, 550; State v. Sickmann, 65 Mo. App. 499; Nixon v. Reid, 67 N. W. Rep. 57; Sisterville Ferry Co. v. Russell, 52 W. Va. 356; State v. Faudre, 54 W. Va. 122; N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Freeholders, N. J., 74 Atl. Rep. 954; Port Richmond Ferry Co. v. Freeholders, N. J., 77 Atl. Rep. 1046.

The right of the State to establish and regulate ferries over boundary streams between States and foreign countries has been sustained. People v. Babcock, 11 Wend. 587; Chilvers v. People, 11 Michigan, 43; Tugwell v. Eagle Pass Ferry Co., 9 S. W. Rep. 120, S. C., 13 S. W. Rep. 654.

This court has repeatedly held that the power over ferries on boundary streams was reserved to the States. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wh. 1; In re Young, Fed. Cas. No. 18,150; Mills v. St. Clair County, 8 How. 569; Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524; Minturn v. LaRue, 23 How. 435; Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black, 603; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365.

Ferries are in aid of commerce and not an interference with commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wh. 1, 235; Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365.

Where a doubt arises as to the restriction of the commerce clause, it is to be decided in favor of the State. Bank v. Tennessee, 104 U. S. 495; Railroad Co. v. Comrs., 103 U. S. 1; Wilson v. Gains, 103 U. S. 417; Railroad Co. v. Hamblen Co., 102 U. S. 273; Railroad Co. v. Gains, 97 U. S. 697; Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 102 Illinois, 570. See Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365.

The acts of Congress relative to the licensing and enrollment of vessels do not interfere with the regulation of ferries by the States. Conway v. Taylor, 1 Bl. 603; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365; The Nassau, 182 Fed. Rep. 696; affirmed in part, 110 C. C. A. 184.

The fact that some articles of freight are also carried on the ferryboat does not change or affect the rule applied

[blocks in formation]

to ferries. St. Clair County v. Interstate Sand Co., 192 U. S. 458; § 2972, Rev. Stat.

A license fee imposed as a condition of granting a ferry license is not a tax on commerce within the meaning of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 102 Illinois, 560, S. C., 107 U. S. 365; Chilvers v. People, 11 Michigan, 43; Ash v. People, 11 Michigan, 347; Kitson v. Ann Arbor, 26 Michigan, 324; McQuillin, Mun. Ord. Co., § 409.

The power of the State to license and regulate ferries includes the power to fix rates for the ferriage of persons and property. Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524; Chosen Freeholders v. State, 24 N. J. Law, 718; State v. Sickmann, 65 Mo. App. 499.

The fact that defendant in error is a foreign corporation does not affect the right of the State to regulate ferries. Port Richmond Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 77 Atl. Rep. 1046.

The ordinance of the city of Sault Ste. Marie regulating ferries on St. Mary's river does not violate the treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

The ordinance does not interfere with the provisions of the treaty that "navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purpose of commerce to inhabitants and to ships, vessels and boats of both countries equally." Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524; Conway v. Taylor, 1 Bl. 603; Escanaba Trans. Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678.

Mr. Henry E. Bodman, with whom Mr. Alexis C. Angell, Mr. Herbert E. Boynton and Mr. James Turner were on the brief, for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by the International Transit Company, a Canadian corporation, to restrain the enforceVOL. CCXXXIV-22

« ПретходнаНастави »