LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL. 



463 



pose of Mr. Moore's proposed amendment was, 

 among other things, to give a remedy to the 

 holders of repudiated State bonds and obliga- 

 tions. The concurrent resolution was not voted 

 upon. 



TAXATION OF IMMIGRANTS. The right of a 

 State to levy a tax on immigrants, for the de- 

 clared purpose of raising money for the execu- 

 tion of its inspection laws, was denied by the 

 Supreme Court, in an opinion announced Feb- 

 ruary 5, 1883. The Court decided, in 1876, 

 that the statute of New York, taxing immi- 

 grants for the purpose of raising money to de- 

 fray the expense of the Emigration Board of 

 that State, was a violation of that clause of the 

 Constitution which vests in Congress the power 

 to regulate foreign commerce. Early in 1882 

 another statute, for the same purpose, was 

 passed by the Legislature of New York. It 

 imposed " a duty " of one dollar on every 

 alien passenger brought to the port of New 

 York. In order to avoid the constitutional ob- 

 jection to the former statute, it was entitled 

 " An act to raise money for the execution of 

 the inspection laws of the State of New York," 

 and provided that the tax levied should be paid 

 by the steamers bringing the immigrants to the 

 Chamberlain of the city of New York ; and 

 then directed that the Chamberlain should 

 hand over to the Commissioners of Emigration 

 whatever money might be necessary for the 

 execution of the inspection laws of the State, 

 and the balance of the tax collected to the 

 Treasurer of the United States. A few days 

 before the enactment of this law the Legisla- 

 ture had passed another "Act for the inspec- 

 tion of alien emigrants, and their effects, by 

 the Commissioners of Emigration," which pre- 

 scribed regulations for the inspection of immi- 

 grants arriving at the port of New York. It 

 was claimed that this legislation, including the 

 imposition of the head-tax, was a lawful exer- 

 cise of the power of the State under Article I, 

 section 10, clause 2 of the Federal Constitu- 

 tion, which declares that "no State shall, 

 without the consent of the Congress, lay any 

 imposts or duties on imports or exports, ex- 

 cept what may be actually necessary for exe- 

 cuting its inspection laws." The Compagnie 

 Generale Transatlantique refused to pay the 

 tax, and contested the constitutionality of the 

 legislation imposing it. In an opinion, written 

 by Justice Miller, the Supreme Court said that 

 neither at the time of the formation of the 

 Constitution, nor since, has any rightful in- 

 spection law included anything but personal 

 property as a subject of its operation ; nor has 

 it ever been held by any competent judicial 

 authority that the words " imports " and " ex- 

 ports " are used in that instrument as applica- 

 ble to free human beings. It knew of nothing 

 which could be exported from one country, 

 or imported into another, that is not in some 

 sense property property in regard to which 

 some one is owner, and of which the owner is 

 either the importer or the exporter. This can 



not apply to a free man. Of him it is never 

 said that he imports himself, or his wife, or his 

 children. Free human beings are not imports 

 or exports within the meaning of the Consti- 

 tution. Furthermore, said the Court, it ap- 

 pears that the object of these New York 

 enactments goes far beyond any correct view 

 of the purpose of an inspection law. The 

 commissioners are to inspect all persons arriv- 

 ing from any foreign country, to ascertain who 

 among them are " habitual criminals or pauper 

 lunatics, idiots, or imbeciles, or orphan per- 

 sons, without means or capacity to support 

 themselves, and subject to become a public 

 charge." It may be safely said that these are 

 matters incapable of being satisfactorily ascer- 

 tained by inspection. What is an " inspec- 

 tion"? Something which can be done by 

 looking at, or weighing, or measuring the thing 

 to be inspected, or by applying to it at once 

 some crucial test. When testimony or evi- 

 dence is to be taken and examined, it is not 

 " inspection " in any sense whatever. Another 

 section provides for the custody, the support, 

 and the treatment for diseases of these per- 

 sons, and the retransport of criminals. Are 

 these "inspection laws"? Is the ascertain- 

 ment of the guilt of a criminal to be made by 

 "inspection"? In fact, these statutes differ 

 from those heretofore held void, only in that 

 they are called in their caption " inspection 

 laws," and in that provision is made for the 

 payment of any surplus, after the support of 

 paupers, criminals, and diseased persons, into 

 the Treasury of the United States a surplus 

 which, in this enlarged view of what are the 

 expenses of an inspection law, it is safe to say 

 will never exist. A State can not make a law 

 designed to raise money to support paupers, to 

 detect or prevent crime, to guard against dis- 

 ease, and cure the sick, an " inspection " law 

 within the constitutional meaning of that word, 

 by calling it so in the title. 



TOBACCO INSPECTION. In the case of Henry 

 A. Turner, plaintiff in error, against the State 

 of Maryland, the Court, on February 5, 1883, 

 gave an elaborate opinion on the question of 

 the constitutionality of certain provisions of 

 the laws of Maryland relating to tobacco in- 

 spection. The provisions in question, being 

 section 41 of chapter 346 of the Laws of 

 Maryland of 1864, as amended and re-enacted 

 by chapter 291 of the Laws of 1870, are as 

 follows : 



After the passage of this act it shall not be lawful 

 to^ carry out of this State, in hogsheads, anv tobacco 

 raised in this State, except in hogsheads which shall 

 have been inspected, passed, and marked, agreeably 

 to the provisions of this act, unless such tobacco shall 

 have been inspected and passed before this act goes 

 into operation, and any person violating the provis- 

 ions of this section shall forfeit and pay the sum of 

 $300, which may be recovered in any court of law of 

 this State, and which shall go to the credit of the to- 

 bacco fund ; provided that nothing herein contained 

 shall he construed to prohibit any grower of tobacco 

 or any purchaser thereof, who may pack the same in 

 the county or neighborhood where grown, from ex- 



