*1 CL Gut v. Baltimore. Guy v. Baltimore. taxing A in the State the exercise of her products 1. cannot, power, impose upon * brought for sale a more onerous- of another ithin her limits or use, own nor discriminate burden or tax than like of her products territory, bringing in being a citizen his in thus reason of by selling them. the
2. An ordinance of vessels laden with whereunder Baltimore, wharves of are for the use of the pay the vessels thereat with which are nоt exacted from fees city, is in conflict States. regarded the use must be not as so exacted, Such fees, (cid:127) foster but mere or device to expedient city’s property, .as means of and Maryland by unequal oppressive domestic and business of other States. burdens industry of other States and far as it 4. So necessary may protect foreign origin, of their discrimination reason countries from by government over сommerce of the national interior of State of the Union. reaches the the several States every Court, State Baltimore Maryland. tbe City Error 4 of an act tbe Assembly Maryland Section “ 162, Act to entitled An wharfin- appoint chapter authorize tbe and to collection of tbe in city gers in said Code Pub- in certain cases city” (Maryland wharfage — as : Laws, 4, sect. follows Local provides lic shall.be, and council “The mayor establish, and authorized to regulate, charge empowered hereby, council, said collect, mayor use of the rate to the reasonable, of and from all think vessels they may at, depositing, landing, transporting goods to or lying resorting of this wharf productions any than articles other council, mayor any to said belonging or wharves the wharves to or rented the said wharf State,.” act, conferred Pursuant “ an ordinance council, passed on July and city Baltimore,” wharves pro- regulate which, as found thirty-third thirty-fifth visions Code, are as 22 in the Baltimore fol- of art. City sections —lows : Gut v. merchandise, All landed on the wares, or Sect. 38. from on board of vessels lying . rates of for each pay following
wharves . the same thereon remain ... every day paid by none, or in event of there owner or consignee, *2 vessel, and vessel to an- master of the all from one shipped goods coffee, other, one-half to the of paid by shipper, bags ginger, cent; other in or articles similar each any bags, one bales pepper, &c., cents; merchandise, . . . each of four barrels of every descrip- otherwise, cents; merchandise each boxes tion or two containing &c., cents; . . . bushel, of . . each three and all grain . sugar, pеr bushel, the other by other sold than the product ” cent; &c., one-half cent; of each grindstones, State “ one in all not the enumerated above list to goods pay pro- portion.” “ at, All to or Sect. vessels lying resorting landing, deposit- or or articles other than the oi ing transporting goods production' this or from wharf or wharves the any on belonging mayo\ council, or wharf said any city, city or rented the belonging charge- able with the as fixed this wharfage wharf any or articles landed or on or wharves deposited belonging council; to the said master owner of vessel so transporting goods or depositing, landing, same.” shall be for the responsible 1860, The act of the General of Assembly chapter (Code Laws, of Public General art. sect. 96, potatoes requires “ of be sold the State at rate of by weight, bushel,” to the under of a fine of ten fifty-six pounds penalty dollars. Code,
Sect. 6 Revised Ordinances of 1858 (Baltimore City — 22, art. is as sect. follows: 10) be lawful
“It shall not vessel for.any receiving cargo within at of the wharves is limits city, on cargo harbor masters of the pay wharfage of leave the wharf where said vessel receives or dis- master, her without said harbor charges cargo, furnishing his manifest of application, with or bills lading cargo, paying same, $20, cоllected, under a to be penalty ownér, collected, commander, as other debts from the captain, said vessels so consignees offending.” Guy Ct. in and June, T. a resident citizen Edward’ Guy, Accomac, arrivéd in the State Virginia; county Powell,” S. schooner George owner, laden with which he was a cargo captain part raised and the State Virginia, of potatoes produced hundred and to two landed said cargo, amounting twenty wharf, to said bushels, on Pratt Street of Pratt wharf reserved.” “that Street Thereupon part $4.40 of him the demanded sum harbor-master landed; and thereof payment potatoes debt, this action of refused, of Baltimore brought the city $20, sect. recover penalty imposed by code, The defendant appeared, supra. him, been rendered he and costs having $20 penalty Court, at the trial wherein he tо the Baltimore City appealed case, law of the court to following grant, prayed — propositions: the act of 1st, That Assembly Maryland *3 162, of 4, sect. the ordinances of the 1827, c. portions thereunder, council which impose spe- mayor passed on extra-state are grown products, cial wharfage charge repug- third clause of the section of art. 1 of the nant to the eighth States, of and unlawful. the United Constitution the General of 2d, the act of of That Assembly Maryland 4, of the ordinances 162, sect. c. portions thereunder, which a’ council passed impose mayor on extra-state are wharfage charge grown products, special clause,of the tenth section of to the second art. 1 of repugnant States, and unlawful. of the Constitution the act of 3d, That Assembly Maryland 162, sect. the ordinances of the рortions c. thereunder, council impose and city spe- passed on extra-state are products, an grown cial charge and immunities of the rights, privileges, infringement under the first clause second section claimed appellant, States, the United and are the Constitution o’f of art. 4 of unlawful. refused to court propositions
The having grant below, sued out this writ of error. affirmed Guy Guy v. 437 Brown, error. J. Mr. Frederick plaintiff and the ordi act the General The Assembly this Baltimore, under which was action nances of the city of United brought, repugnant 419; 12 v. Wheat. and therefore void. Brown Maryland, 31; Wardens, v. 6 Wall. v. Port Steamship Company Woodruff 148; Lott, id. Parham, 123; v. Ward v. Mary 8 id. Hinson 204; Cases, 418; id. land, Tax Case Tonnage id. State 12 232; 581; id. Tax, id. Peete v. 19 Morgan, 15 State Freight 577; id. Orleans, 20 Railroad v. v. Cannon New Company Missouri, 275; 456; v. 91 S. Welton State U. 21 id. 259; 92 id. v. Virginia, v. McCready Henderson Mayor, &c., 566; 391; id. Packet Com id. v. 94 Cooke 97 Pennsylvania, Case, 80; 3 Keokuk, Bland (Md.), v. 95 id. pany Wharf 361. v. McLane, contra, James cited 5 Dugan
Mr. L. Mayor, &c., ; Cases, 402; How. 7 Conner Gill & John. 357 Passenger (Md.) Wardens, Elliott, 591; v. v. 18 id. Port Steamship Company 31; 136; Parham, id. Alex Wall. v. 8 Downham v. 6 Woodruff Marshall, ; 173; Council, id. v. id. 146 Vicksburg, andria id, Tax, 277; Case Virginia, v. Freight McCready 391; Keokuk, 80; v. 95 id. 94 U. S. Packet Company Cooley Taxation, Mr. Hablan delivered the Justice the court. opinion Parham we had Wall. occasion to (8 Woodruff the constitutional consider of an ordinance of the validity assessed, Mobile been under of which had provisions a tax sales in that of certain municipal purposes, merchandise, than Ala- product articles carried application bama.. into assailed as Alabama from other incon- *4 sistent with the constitutional inhibition States upon levy- — on or duties with the ing imposts imports exports power to commerce with Congress foreign regulate — several States clause which declares among that the be entitled to im- citizens of each State shall all the munities of citizens of the several States. privileges the first of these it was ruled that propositions
Touching Ct. Gut Constitution, term as used sect. of tbe had import, in. countries, reference from and not foreign imported as to such were from brought one the States the Union into another. In the Brown v. argument, Maryland (12 Wheat. was cited in 419) that the support proposition whole in its to articles from application brought sale, to Mobile for States was an unauthorized regulation of inter-state commerce. case, we branch said: Upon “If court there Brown v. meant to Maryland] say [in State, tax levied on from a sister which wak not levied goods a similar character within the produced would be conflict with the clause of the Constitution giving commerce; States, Congress right regulate among consideration, much as the tax on then under foreign was in conflict commerce with regulate nations, we agree proposition.” In a of our v. Par subsequent opinion portion Woodruff ham, asked, said: But we is there no limit States to tax the of other produce within their borders ? And can them as brought tax them out or to drive their introduction or altogether prevent ,The over their transit their ? case us is a before territory tax on sales of merchandise alike all sales simple imposed Mobile, made whether sales be made a citizen Alabama, or of another and whether sold are the goods that State or of some other. There no is. to discriminate attempt injuriously against States, citizens, not, or the of their and the casé is rights therefore, an fetter or' attempt the сitizens of other States of or im deprive privilege citizens of possessed Alabama. But a law munity having in our be an operation'would, opinion, infringement of the Constitution which relate to those provisions subjects, therefore, and, void.”
In Hinson Lott we a. Wall. statute (8 upheld Alabama, taxes the sale of liquors imposing spirituous limits, within did not ground that it discriminate of other them subjected only to the same taxation similar articles manufactured imposed upon *5 Guy 4S9 Baltimore. of a different Had the statute been in that State. susceptible construction, to been held be it would have repugnant Constitution. we examined the
In v. 418), pro Ward Maryland (12 id. which, visions of statute of among things, residents of that required permanent persons, before for sale the limits of the within selling offering wares, whatever, or merchandise any goods, manufactured in that agricultural produсts State, to obtain a license therefor. The amount exacted for than the statute license resident larger in like business. traders statute to engaged declaring Constitution, that, we to the Federal “inas- repugnant much as the Constitution citizens of each provides entitled to State immunities cit- privileges States, in the izens several it follows the defendant might sale, sell or offer or within the district de- expose lawfully indictment, sсribed in the which the any goods permanent residents of the sell or offer or for sale in might expose district, without tax or being subjected higher excise than that exacted law of such permanent residents.” in the more same recent case of Welton v.
Upon ground, State Missouri S. we held void a U. statute of (91 license-tax Missouri imposing peddler’s upon persons going medicines, from to sell and other place place patent merchandise, wares, 'books, charts, and station- except maps, not the or manufacture of that product, ery, growth, which did not a like tax the sale of similar impose upon manufacture of Missouri. growth, product, In view of these other decisions of this it must be court, can, as settled tbat no State regarded consistently Constitution, Federal of other impose use, therein for sale or citizens because brought therein, sale thereto, transportation prod- ucts of other more onerous burdens or taxes than the like of its own imposes territory. so, If this were not it is how easy perceive commerce with Congress regulate annulled, States could be several practically equality Gut Cfc. of commercial' secured the Federal Constitution privileges citizens the several States be materially abridged “ Over whatever other interests of the impaired. country,” Webster, Mr. “this diffuse its benefits government may *6 true, and it will be as matter of blessings, historical always fact, that had its immediate in the necessities of com- origin merce;' and for its the relief those immediate neces- object, sities, causes, their and a uniform by removing by establishing But State system.” as that indi- steady legislation cited, cated in the cases have been if maintained this by сourt, would our commerce to that bring ultimately oppressed state,” at the degraded existing adoption present Constitution, when the Confederation was helpless, inadequate (cid:127) instituted,. abandoned and a national with full government over the of commerce, entire that subject except wholly internal the Union. composing How far the enunciated in the cases principles foregoing us, control-the determination of the one before we now proceed n to inquire. an act
By Assembly passed Maryland, was council of given mayor ¡establish, Baltimore to and collect to their regulate, charge, reasonable, use such rate of think wharfage might at, from all vessels to or resorting landing, lying depositing, articles, or or transporting goods other than the that products of State, on wharf or wharves to that any municipal belonging or wharf in the than the corporation, other public any wharves to or rented and that belonging by part wharf, Pratt Street theretofore reserved for use of the citi- zens of Laws, that State. Code Public Local sect. 945. of that act the its pursuance constituted author- city, by ities, in the an act year passed regulating w.iarves. its section it is declared all By thirty-third wares, or merchandise on landed wharvеs from on board whaiwes, vessels at said or any lying placed thereon for the sale, or for purpose other shipment exposure than the the State shall product pay rates therein according prescribed.- to.certain thirty-fifth Gut at, land section that “all-vessels belonging or-lying declares than other or articles or goods ing, transporting depositing, or wharf wharves State, on or from belong- this any production of in the council, wharf or any ing mayor rented wharves belonging this as fixed shall chargeable landed or or articles deposited goods the said wharf wharves belonging council; of the vessel depositing, owner master respon- landing, transporting sections sible the same.” ordinance contained The- enforcement. providing of Accomac a resident citizen County, appellant Guy, schooner,
Virginia, sailing yеar to Bal- from that which he was master and part-owner, county timore, raised in In June laden with Virginia. potatoes his one he landed year, Pratt Street wharf reserved), city (not part *7 barrels of therefrom two hundred and twenty discharged statute and Under the of the authority foregoing
potatoes. him the the demanded of harbor-master pay- |4.40 with ment as He to of refused wharfage. comply and, demand, the was rendered suеd by judgment him in the a the which was court of peace, against justice the court affirmed Court highest City in which a decision of the case could have been Maryland had.
It that such dues not and is are never admitted or vessels to been assessed parties have bringing or other articles in the State of grown Maryland. port potatoes in the statute and ordinance The support argument virtue which the below rests is that the сity, by its in in of the wharves has the its ownership question, right, discretion, their use to to all vessels thereat permit landing those products Maryland; operating vessels, laden cannot products justly so not to complain, long pay wharfage fees in excess of use of reasonable city’s property. Gut Gfc. is
This however unsound proposition, ingenious plausible, both The upon principle authority. municipal corporаtion of Baltimore created was to Maryland promote interests and convenience. The wharf public at which landed his was vessel dedicated to appellant ago long use. it whose benefit acquired, use, who its are entitled in are not alone those participate ^ who may engage transportation port embraces, It all products Maryland. necessarily, in trade and commercе public navigable waters States. in such Every employed trade and commerce traverse those waters without let or may hinderance from local or State and the national authority; all, secures without reference to employed, * owners, the residence or citizenship privilege at whatever, of Baltimore with port cargo of, excluded therefrom or under the some statute by, enacted in the exertion of its police powers. admitted, it will be could not such impose lawfully consist, direct burden tax because it cargo any may whole of other States. The con- part, cession of to the States would render wholly national control of commerce nugatory the trade and business of the place country mercy of local for their regulations, secure having exclusive object benеfits to the citizens and States. But particular it is claimed that a State one of its empower political a mere agencies, corporation municipal portion representing of its civil burden inter-state power, by exacting from those of other transporting fees, does not exact from those bring- *8 to the same wharves the ing The products Maryland. can no more do this than could discriminate the citizеns and in the use States ' streets or other public Bal- highways. timore, chooses, if it wharves; can which- it permit owns, to be used without Under charge. if fees, also exact from all who may equally,
use its such improved wharves, do not provided exceed charges Guy what is fair remuneration for the use its Packet property. Louis, 423; Tobin, v. St. v. Company supra, p. Vicksburg supra, 430; Keokuk, Packet v. S. 80. But it p. U. can- Company it thus holds for use so emрloy property as to hinder, obstruct, or burden inter-state commerce in the interest internal to that The fees wholly State. end, it exacts to that dues, denominated although cannot be in the sense of decisions, our former regarded, for the use' of the but merely city’s property, as mere indirection, device to expedient a. accomplish, by what tax, viz., State could not accomplish by direct build its domestic commerce means of up unequal burdens oppressive business of other industry States. exactions,
Such in the name of must be wharfage, regarded as taxation inter-state commerce. Municipal corpora- tions, owning waters of navigable States, and United quasi public corporations transporting of- the cannot be discrimina- country, permitted by tions of that character commercial impedе intercourse and traffic the several States among nations. foreign
In the exercise of its a State police exclude powers, may from its sale therein territory, prohibit the.
which, in its exercised, are judgment, fairly prejudicial health or which would the lives or endanger of its property But if the under the people. guise exerting police should make such exclusion or powers, prohibition applicable kind, of that solely may produced manu- in other factured courts would find no difficulty to be in conflict with the legislation holding States. of the national over government commerce with the several States is foreign broad and It reaches the interior of comprehensive. State of the every Union, so far as it necessary protect and countries from discrimination reason of by. their Brown 12 Wheat. origin. can be сlearer than that the statute of
Nothing and the. ordinance respects *9 Ct. Pierce v. Wade. over to, are in conflict with the adverted Congress commerce. subject reversed, with directions to dismiss the is judgment his costs action against appellant, against city. ordered.
So Mr. Chief Waite dissenting. Justice I cannot concur in this We have that a decided judgment. for collect reasonable municipal corporation may the use of its landing-placеs. wharves improved n Sucha is no sense a burden. just tax charge fit to from has seen prohibit for making any charge prod- depositing ucts of the to do. State. That was all the State undertook I am unable to mind that the Consti- tp conclusion bring my tution of a United States makes this equivalent that all provision at the to the stands shall be law as it free as the now is long in force.
Pierce Wade. was rendered in favor Where of the for replevin portion plaintiff under- the and in delivered favor of the defendant writ, property value, a return same residue, plain- §5,000, held, error to this dis- tiff sued out writ of must be the writ court, jurisdiction. missed for want of Circuit Court of the United for the Error of Kansas. District
The facts are stated in the opinion court. Qobb Nelson Mr. in error. plaintiffs counsel No for the defendant in appeared error.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion court.
This was a suit in Pierce replevin Heed, brought error, Wade to recover a plaintiffs number large