Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/930

 822 FEDEBAIi SBPOBTEB. �general assembly of Maryland to this case, two objection» are made : First, that it is an unconstitutional attempt of the Btate to interfere with the powers delegated by the constitu- tion to congress to regulate commerce among the several States. Undoubtedly it bas been beld that "commerce" in- cludes navigation and every species of commercial intercourse, (9 Wheaton, 1,) but it bas also been held that, until congress does exercise the power given to it in such way as to mani- fest the intention to supersede or prevent state legislation, the states may, by law, prescribe such police regulations as are necessary to prevent the obstruction of its harbors and navigable waters, and the safety of vessels lying at anchor or moving thereon. These regulations have been held con- stitutional, and bave been recognized by the admiralty as im- posing duties on vessels which must be complied with. The General Clinch, 21 How. 184, In Cooley's Constitutional Limitations it is stated, as the resuit of the decisions, that "the state has the same power of regulating the speed and general conduct of ships and other vessels navigating its water highways, that it has to regulate the speed and con- duct of persons and vehicles upon the ordinary highway, Bubject to the restriction that its regulations must not coma in conflict with any regulations established by congress for foreign commerce or that between the states." �I am of opinion that so much of the law as declares in what parts of the Annamessex river it shall not be lawf ul for vessels to anchor is a constitutional exercise of the rights of state legislation which the Eoach was bound to observe. �As to the penalties prescribed by that act for violation of its provisions, they cannot be enforced in the admiralty. This court must apply to the case the general maritime rules applicable to a collision between two vessels, one of which is anchored in an improper place, not regarding so much of the act as declares that the vessel unlawfuUy at anchor shall in no case be entitled to recover for any loss resulting from a collision. The Gray Eagle, 9 Wall. 610; Williamson v. Bar- rett, 13 How. 109; The Continental, 14 Wall, 359. �The second objection urged to the act of 1867 is the coii- ��� �