Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate commerce clause, but such enrollment does not of itself exclude the right of a State to exact a license from her own citizens on account of their ownership and use of such property having its situs within the State. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 377. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 563. I. C. C. v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U. S. 194. Limitation of vessel owners' liability.-Act of June 19, 1886, which extends the limited liability acts to all sea-going vessels, and also to all vessels used on lakes or rivers or in inland navigation, including canal boats, barges, and lighters, was passed in amendment of the maritime law, and the power to make such amendments is coextensive with such law. The power of Congress is not confined to the boundaries or class of subjects which limit and characterize the power to regulate commerce; but in maritime matters it extends to all matters and places to which the maritime law extends. In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 12. The Katie, 40 Fed. 480. In re Vessels Owners' Towing Co., 26 Fed. 169. In re Long Island, etc., Transp. Co., 5 Fed. 599. King v. American Transp. Co., 1 Flipp. (U. S.) 1. Recording conveyances of vessels.-Act of Congress of July 29, 1850, held constitutional. As Congress under its power to regulate commerce has made regulations pertaining to vessels of the United States, its power may be extended to the security and protection of the rights and title of all persons dealing in such property. White's Bank v. Smith, 7 Wall. 650. Regulating payment of seamen's wages.-Act of Congress making it unlawful to pay any seaman wages in advance held valid as applied to contracts of sailors for interstate and foreign service. Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U. S. 173. Kenney v. Blake, 125 Fed. 672. As to prohibiting foreign vessels from entering United States ports, see "Commerce with Foreign Nations," p. 106. Navigation and navigable waters.-The power of Congress to regulate navigable waters is not expressly granted in the Constitution, but is a power incidental to the express power to regulate commerce. All the powers which existed in the States before the adoption of the Constitution are the powers possessed by Congress over navigable waters under its authority to regulate commerce. This power involves the control of the waters Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate of the United States which are navigable in fact. On this subject the court said, in Nelson v. Leland (22 How. 55): Under the English system the ebb and flow of the tide, with few if any exceptions, established the fact of navigability; and this was the course of decision in this country until recently. Our contracted views of the English Admiralty, which was limited by the ebb and flow of the tide, were discarded and the more liberal principles of the civil law, equally embraced by the Constitution, were adopted. This law is commercial in its character and applies to all navigable waters, except to a commerce exclusively within a State. Many of our leading rivers are sometimes unnavigable; but this can not affect their navigability at other times. A commerce carried on between two or more States is subject to the laws and regulations of Congress and to the admiralty jurisdiction. See also Leovy v. U. S., 177 U. S. 632. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 725. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 682. Miller v. New York, 109 U. S. 395. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Brdg. Co., 18 How. 421. Cardwell v. Bridge Company, 113 U. S. 205. Gibson v. U. S., 166 U. S. 269. The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166. Hill v. U. S., 149 U. S. 593. Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473. All navigable waters are under the control of the United States for the purpose of regulating and improving navigation, and although the title to the shore and submerged soil is in the various States, and individual users under them, it is always subject to the servitude in respect of navigation created in favor of the Federal Government by the Constitution. Gibson v. U. S., 166 U. S. 269. U. S. v. Chandler-Dunbar, etc., Co., 229 U. S. 53. U. S. v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316. McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387. The title and rights of riparian or littoral proprietors in the soil below high-water mark are governed by the laws of the several States, subject to the rights granted to the United States by the Constitution. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1. The power to regulate commerce includes the regulation of navigation and comprehends navigation within the limits of every State in the Union so far as that navigation may be in any manner connected with the commerce over which Congress has jurisdiction. Cooley v. Philadelphia, 12 How. 299. The City of Salem, 37 Fed. 846. The Hazel Kirke, 25 Fed. 607. Foster v. Davenport, 22 How. 244. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Brdg. Co., 18 How. 421. Sec. 8.--Powers of Congress Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 725. Union Bridge Co. v. U. S., 204 U. S. 364. Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Kaw Valley, 233 U. S. 75. Railroad Company v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584. An obstruction placed by authority of Congress at the head of one channel in a navigable river between two States, for the purpose of improving another channel, is not an invalid exercise by Congress of control of a navigable river. South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 13. Woodruff v. North Bloomfield, etc., Co., 18 Fed. 778. Under the power to regulate commerce Congress may establish lighthouses, build wharves, improve harbors, etc. Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 537. Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605. The liability of the United States under the fifth amendment to make just compensation for land taken by the Government for public use is not defeated because such land was taken in the exercise of the power of Congress to improve navigation. U. S. v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445. Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102. Canals.-Congress had power to construct the Panama Canal acquired by treaty with the Republic of Panama. Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24. Canals and waterways may be opened to connect navigable bays, harbors, and rivers with each other or with the interior of the country. Stockton v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 32 Fed. 9. Bridges. The paramount power of regulating bridges that affect navigation is in Congress. It comes from the power to regulate commerce. Bridge Co. v. U. S., 105 U. S. 475. Stone v. Bridge Co., 206 U. S. 267. Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 12. Monongahela Bridge Co. v. U. S., 216 U. S. 177. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713. Congress may use its sovereign powers directly or through a corporation created for that object, to construct bridges for the accommodation of interstate commerce. Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U. S. 530. Miller v. New York, 109 U. S. 385. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 129. An act of Congress declaring certain bridges across a river between two States "to be lawful structures in their present positions and elevations, and shall be so held and taken to be, anything in the law or laws of the United States to the contrary Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate notwithstanding," is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to regulate commerce. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., 18 How. 429. Union Bridge Co. v. U. S., 204 U. S. 364. Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall. 454. The Ohio River is a navigable stream subject to the commercial power of Congress, and a State law authorizing the erection of a bridge obstructing navigation affords no justification to the bridge company. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Brdg. Co., 13 How. 518. A bridge over an interstate waterway, though erected under the sanction of a State, and not an illegal structure, or an unreasonable obstruction to navigation in the condition of commerce and navigation when erected, must be taken as having been constructed with knowledge of the paramount power of Congress to regulate commerce, and subject to the possibility that Congress might, at some time after its construction, exert its constitutional power to protect free navigation as it then was against unreasonable obstructions. Monongahela Brdg. Co. v. U. S., 216 U. S. 177. The United States has power to confer authority on a municipal corporation to build and maintain an interstate bridge over a navigable stream, and to that end to condemn land for approaches in another State. Latinette v. St. Louis, 201 Fed. 676. An act of Congress authorizing the Secretary of War, when he deems any railroad or other bridge over any of the navigable waterways of the United States to be an unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of such waters on account of insufficient height, width of span, or otherwise, to require the alteration of the bridge so as to render navigation under it reasonably unobstructed, does not deprive the States of authority to grant power to bridge navigable streams, but simply creates an additional and cumulative remedy to prevent such structures, although lawfully authorized, from interfering with commerce. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365. A State has no power to fix tolls on a bridge connecting it with another State, thereby regulating charges on interstate commerce, without the assent of Congress or the concurrence of such other State. Covington, etc., Brdg. Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204. Canada, etc., R. Co. v. International Brdg. Co., 8 Fed. 191. Pilots. The power of Congress to regulate commerce is without limitation and extends to all subjects of commerce, and to all persons engaged in it, and embraces traffic, navigation, and 1 See also same subject under "Powers Remaining in the States," etc., p. 172, Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate intercourse, and the whole subject of pilots and pilotage, but the Constitution does not in terms exclude the exercise of any authority by the States to regulate pilots, and the States have authority to regulate the subject in the absence of congressional legislation. Mr. Justice Curtis, in delivering the opinion of the court in Cooley v. Philadelphia (12 How. 315), said: When we look at the nature of the service performed by pilots, to the relations which that service and its compensations bear to navigation between the several States, and between the ports of the United States and foreign countries, we are brought to the conclusion that the regulation of the qualifications of pilots, of the modes and times of offering and rendering their services, of the responsibilities which shall rest upon them, of the powers they shall possess, of the compensation they may demand, and of the penalties by which their rights and duties may be enforced, do constitute regulation of navigation, and consequently of commerce, within the just meaning of this clause of the Constitution. See also Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450. Acts of August 7, 1789, March 2, 1837, August 30, 1852, June 8, 1864, July 13, 1866, July 25, 1866, and February 25, 1867, regulating pilotage, exert and exercise the plenary power of Congress over the subject. Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236. The adoption by Congress of State laws regulating pilotage renders them enforceable, though they are regulations of com merce. Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572. The legislation of Congress prescribing the qualifications for pilots and engineers of steam vessels engaged in the coasting trade, navigating the inland waters of the United States while engaged in interstate commerce is justified on the ground that it is incident to the power to regulate commerce. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The States have concurrent power with Congress to pass pilotage laws until Congress shall take exclusive control of the subject by the enactment of a general and uniform law; and such acts as Congress shall make are of paramount authority, and all State laws which are in direct and manifest collision with them must yield. The South Cambria, 27 Fed. 525. Freeman v. The Undaunted, 37 Fed. 662. For concurrent powers of Congress and the States regarding pilots, see: Steamship Company v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. 31. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 207. Cooley v. Philadelphia, 12 How. 319. Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90. Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 225 U. S. 187. Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 341. |