Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/388

 EEOBCK V. BAKGE JOHN K. WELOH. 381 �favors the tonnage owned by citizens of New York, nor doea �it directly or indirectly establish an inequality in commercial �intercourse. "While its effect, taken in connection with the �other statutes of the state, is to allow wharfingers to charge �different rates of wharfage, according to circumstances pre- �scribed in the act, 8tni, neither in words nor in operation, �does it create a distinction between the citizens of different �states, or between commerce among the state s and purely �internai commerce. Those citizens of New York whose canal- �boats navigate the harbor of New York and the East and �the Iludson rivers, pay the same rate of wharfage as do those �citizens of other states whose boats are engaged in the same �business; and those citizens of other states whose boats are �engaged in navigating the canals of this state, pay the same �rate of wharfage as do the citizens of New York who are �engaged in that business, 'vhe most that can be said is that �the gtatute has an indirect effect to favor the navigation of �the canals and rivers of this state, by reducing the amount �of port charges incident to voyages upon those waters. But �the act is, nevertheless, in substance and effect, a wharfage act, �and I am unable to see how the indirect effect above indicated �renders it repugnant to any provision in the constitution of �the United States. For these reasons, I am of the opinion �that the present wharfage act of New York, above set forth, �is a valid enactment, and, theref ore, to be resorted to by this �court in order to determine the rate of wharfage which the �libellant is entitled to charge for the wharfage service shown �to have been rendered." �In the recent case of Guy v. The Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, (12 Chicago Legal News, 262,) decided by the supreme court of the United States, it is said that it must be regarded as settled, in view of the decisions of that court in Woodruff v. Parham, (8 Wall. 123,) in Hinson v. Lott, (8 Wall. 148,) in Ward v. Maryland, (12 Wall. 418,) in Welton v. State of Missouri, (91 U. S. 2Y5,) and in other cases, that no state can, consistently with the federal constitution, impose upon the products of other states brought therein for sale or use, or upon citizens because engaged in the sale therein, or the transportatiou ����