CORFIELD v. CORYELL. [4 Wash. C. C. 371.]

Transcription

1 CORFIELD v. CORYELL CIRCUIT COURT COURT OF THE OF THE UNITED UNITED STATES STATES FOR PENNSYLVANIA. FOR PENNSYLVANIA. [4 Wash. C. C. 371.] This was an action of trespass for seizing, taking, and carrying away, and converting to the defendant's use, a certain vessel, the property of of the plaintiff, called the the "Hiram." Plea Plea not not guilty, guilty, with with leave leave to justify. to justify. The case, as proved at at the the trial, trial, was was follows: as follows:... [Here it it is is stated that the plaintiff was owner of of the the "Hiram," a vessel a vessel licensed as as a coaster, which, being let to to one one Keene, proceeded from Philadelphia in May, 1821, to to certain certain oyster oyster beds beds in the in waters the waters of New of Jersey, New Jersey, and was there seized while dredging for oysters ; and ; and was was condemned and sold by judicial proceedings under the the laws laws of New of New Jersey. Jersey. The The defendant acted as "prize master" in the seizure.] Washington, J., after stating to the to the jury jury the great the great importance importance of of many of the questions involved in in this this cause, recommended to to them to to find for the plaintiff, and and assess the the damages; subject to to the the opinion of of the court upon the law argument of the facts in the cause. Verdict for $560, subject, &c. This case was argued, on the points of law agreed by by the the counsel to to arise on the facts, at at the the October October term, term, 1824, and was taken under advisement until April term, term, 1825, 1825, when when the following the following opinion opinion was was delivered: Washington, J., J., delivered the the opinion opinion of the of court. the The court. points The points reserved present, for the consideration of of the the court, court, many many interesting and difficult questions, which will will be be examined in the in the shape shape of objections made by the plaintiff's counsel to to the the seizure of of the the "Hiram," and and of objec- the proceedings of the magistrates of Cumberland County, upon whose sentence the defendant rests his justification of the of the alleged alleged trespass. trespass. These objections are, First. That the Act Act of of the the Legislature of New of New Jersey Jersey of the of 9th the of9th of June, 1820, under which this vessel, found engaged in taking oysters in Morris River Cove by by means of of dredges, was was seized, condemned, and and sold, is is repugnant to to the the Constitution of the of United the United States in States the in the following particulars ::

2 1. To the eighth section of of the first article, which grants grants to to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and and among among the the several States, and with the Indian tribes. 2. To the second section of of the the fourth fourth article, article, which which declares, declares, that that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. 3. To the second section of the third article, which declares, that that the the judicial power of of the the United States should extend to to all all cases of of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In case the Act should be be considered as as not not being exposed to to these these admi- constitutional objections, it is then insisted, Secondly. That the locus in in quo was was not not within the the territorial limits limits of New Jersey. But if it was, then Thirdly. It It was was not not within within the jurisdiction the jurisdiction of the magistrates of the magistrates of of Cumberland County. Fourthly. We have to consider the objection made by by the the defendant's counsel to the form of this action. The first section of of the the Act Act of New of New Jersey Jersey declares, declares, that, that, from from and and after the 1st of May, till till the the 1st 1st of of September in in every every year, year, no no person person shall rake on any oyster bed in this State, or or gather any oysters on on any any banks or beds within the same, under a penalty of $10. Second section. No person residing in, in, or or out out of of this this State, State, shall, shall, at at any time, dredge for for oysters in in any any of the of the rivers, rivers, bays, bays, or waters or waters of of the State, under the penalty of $50. The third section prescribes the the manner of of proceeding, in cases in cases of of violations of the preceding sections. The two next sections have nothing to do with the present case. The sixth section enacts, that it it shall shall not not be be lawful lawful for any for any person, person, who is not, at at the the time, an an actual inhabitant and and resident of of this this State, State, to gather oysters in any of of the the rivers, bays, bays, or or waters waters in this in this State, State, on on board of any vessel, not wholly owned by by some some person, inhabitant of, of, or actually residing in in this this State; and and every every person so so offending, shall shall forfeit $10, and shall also forfeit the vessel employed in the commission

3 of such offence, with all the oysters, rakes, &c., belonging to the same. The seventh section provides, that it it shall be be lawful for for any any person person to seize and secure such vessel, and to give information to two justices of the county where such seizure shall shall be be made, made, who who are are required required to to meet for the trial of of the said case, and to determine the same; and in case of condemnation, to order the said vessel, &c. to be sold. The first question then is, whether this Act, or or either section of of it, is it, is repugnant to the power granted to Congress to regulate commerce? The The next next question is, is, whether this this Act Act infringes infringes that section that section of of the Constitution which declares that that "the "the citizens citizens of each of each State State shall shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of of citizens in in the the several States "? The inquiry is, is, what are are the the privileges and and immunities of of citizens citizens in in the several States? We We feel feel no no hesitation in confining confining these these expressions to those privileges and and immunities which which are, are, in their in nature, their nature, expresfundamental; which belong, of of right, to to the the citizens of of all free all free governments; and which have, at at all all times, times, been been enjoyed by by the the citizens citizens of of govern- the several States which compose this Union, from from the the time time of their of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What What these these fundamental principles are, it it would perhaps be be more tedious than than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be be all all comprehended under the the following general heads: protection by by the the government; the the enjoyment of lifeof life to enu- and liberty, with the the right right to acquire to acquire and possess and possess property property of every of every kind, and to to pursue and and obtain obtain happiness and and safety; safety; subject subject nevertheless to such restraints as as the the government may may justly justly prescribe for for never- the general good of the whole. The The right right of a of citizen a citizen of one of State one State to to pass through, or to to reside in in any any other other State, State, for purposes for purposes of trade, of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or or otherwise; to to claim the the benefit benefit of of the writ of habeas corpus; to to institute and and maintain actions of of any any kind kind in the courts of of the the State; to to take, hold hold and and dispose of of property, either either real or personal; and an an exemption from from higher higher taxes taxes or impositions or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of of the the State; State; may may be be mentioned as as some of the particular privileges and immunities of of citizens, which which are are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to to be be fundamental; to which may be be added, the the elective franchise, as as regulated and established by the laws or or constitution of of the the State State in in which which regu- it is is to to be be exercised. These, These, and and many many others others which which might might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and and the the enjoyment of them by by the the citizens of of each each State, State, in every in every other other State, State, was be men- was

4 manifestly calculated (to (to use use the the expressions of of the the preamble preamble of the of the corresponding provision in in the the old old Articles Articles of Confederation) of Confederation) "the "the better to to secure and and perpetuate mutual mutual friendship friendship and intercourse and intercourse among the people of the different States of the Union." But we cannot accede to to the the proposition which which was was insisted insisted on by on by the counsel, that, under this provision of of the the Constitution, the the citizens citizens of the several States are permitted to participate in in all all the the rights which belong exclusively to to the citizens of of any any other other particular State, State, merely merely upon the ground that they they are are enjoyed by by those those citizens; citizens; much much less, less, that in regulating the the use use of of the the common common property property of the of citizens the citizens of of such State, the legislature is bound to to extend to to the the citizens of of all all the the other States the same advantages as are secured to to their own citizens. A several fishery, either as as the the right right to it to respects it respects running running fish, fish, or or such as are stationary, such as oysters, clams, and the like, is is as much the property of the individual to to whom it belongs, it as as dry dry land, land, or land or land covered by water; and is is equally protected by the by the laws laws of the of State the State against the aggressions of others, whether citizens or strangers. Where those private rights do not exist to to the the exclusion of of the the common right, right, that of fishing belongs to to all all the the citizens or or subjects of of the the State. State. It isit is the property of all; to to be be enjoyed by by them them in subordination to the to the laws laws which regulate its use. They may may be be considered as as tenants in in common of this property; and and they they are are so so exclusively entitled entitled to the to use the of use it, of it, that it it cannot be be enjoyed by by others others without without the tacit the tacit consent, consent, or theor the express permission of the the sovereign who who has has the the power power to regulate to regulate its use. This power in in the the Legislature of of New New Jersey Jersey to to exclude the the citizens citizens of the other States from a participation a in the in the right right of taking of taking oysters oysters within the waters of of that that State, State, was was denied denied by the by the plaintiffs plaintiffs counsel, counsel, upon principles of public law, independent of of the the provision of of the the Constitution which we we are are considering, upon upon the ground the ground that they that are they are Con- incapable of being appropriated until until they they are are caught. caught. This argument is unsupported, we think, by by authority. Rutherfoth, Rutherfoth, b. 1, b. ch. 1, 5, ch. 5, sect. 4 and 5, who quotes Grotius as as his his authority, lays lays it down, it down, that, that, although wild beasts, birds, and and fishes, which which have have not not been been caught, caught, have never in in fact fact been been appropriated, so as so to as separate to separate them them from from the common stock to to which which all all men men are equally are equally entitled, entitled, yet where yet where the exclusive right in in the the water water and and soil soil which which a person a person has has occasion occasion to use in in taking them them is is vested vested in others, in others, no other no other person person can claim can claim the liberty of of hunting, fishing, or fowling, or fowling, on lands, on lands, or waters, or waters, which which are so appropriated. "The sovereign," says Grotius, b. b. 2, ch. 2,

5 sect. 5, "who has dominion over the the land, or or waters, in in which which the the fish fish are, may prohibit foreigners [by [by which which expression we we understand him him to mean others than than subjects or citizens or citizens of the of State] the State] from taking from taking them." That this exclusive right right of taking of taking oysters oysters in the in waters the waters of Newof New Jersey has never been ceded by by that that State, State, in express in express terms, terms, to the to the United States, is admitted by by the the counsel for for the the plaintiff; and and having having shown, as we think we we have, have, that that this this right right is a right is a of right property, of property, vested either in certain individuals, or or in in the the State, State, for for the the use use of the of the citizens thereof; it it would, in our in our opinion, opinion, be going be going quite too quite far too far to construe the grant of privileges and immunities of of citizens, as as amounting to a grant of of a a co-tenancy in in the the common property of of the the State, State, to to the citizens of of all all the the other other States. States. Such a construction would, in in many instances, be productive of of the the most most serious serious public public inconvenience and injury, particularly, in in regard regard to those to those kinds kinds of fish, of fish, which, which, inconveniby being exposed to too general use, may be be exhausted. The The oyster oyster beds belonging to a State may be be abundantly sufficient for for the the use use of of the citizens of that State, but might be totally exhausted and destroyed if the legislature could not not so so regulate the the use use of them of them as to as exclude to exclude the citizens of of the the other other States from from taking taking them, them, except except under under such such limitations and restrictions as the laws may prescribe.... Fourthly.... The objections to to this this form form of of action action are are fatal. fatal.... The "Hiram" then, having been lawfully in in possession of of Keene, under under a contract of hiring for for a a month, which had had not not expired at the at the time time the the alleged trespass was committed, the action cannot be supported. Let judgment be entered for the defendant. Charles J. Inr/ersoll and J. R. Ingersoll, for plaintiffs. M'Rvaine and Condy, for defendants. 1 defendants.1 1 And And so so McCready McCready v. Va., v. Va., 94 U. 94 S. U S See also See Conner also Conner v. Elliott, v. 18 Elliott, How ; How. Paul v. 591; Va., 8 Wall. 168; Ward v. v. Md., Wall. 418; 418; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 ; Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 502, 607. ED. Source: Cases on Constitutional Law, James Bradley Thayer, 1894, pp ( gbs_summary_r&cad=0#ppa453,m1)