CORFIELD

CORYELLC

IRCUIT

OURT OF THE

NITED

TATES

FOR

ENNSYLVANIA

.1825.[4

Wash. C. C.

371.] This was an action of trespass for seizing, taking, andcarrying away, and converting to the defendant's use, acertain vessel, the property of the plaintiff, called the"Hiram." Plea not guilty, with leave to justify. The case, asproved at the trial, was as follows: . . . [Here it isstated that the plaintiff was owner of the "Hiram," avessel licensed as a coaster, which, being let to oneKeene, proceeded from Philadelphia in May, 1821, tocertain oyster beds in the waters of New Jersey, andwas there seized while dredging for oysters ; and wascondemned and sold by judicial proceedings under thelaws of New Jersey. The defendant acted as "prizemaster" in the seizure.]Washington, J., after stating to the jury the greatimportance of many of the questions involved ш thiscause, recommended to them to find for the plaintiff, andassess the damages; subject to the opinion of the courtupon the law argument of the facts in the cause.Verdict for $560, subject, &c. This case was argued, on the points of law agreed bythe counsel to arise on the facts, at the October term,1824, and was taken under advisement until April term,1825, when the following opinion was delivered:Washington, J., delivered the opinion of the court. Thepoints reserved present, for the consideration of thecourt, many interesting and difficult questions, which willbe examined in the shape of objec-tions made by theplaintiff's counsel to the seizure of the "Hiram," and theproceedings of the magistrates of Cumberland County,upon whose sentence the defendant rests his justification

of the alleged trespass. These objections are, —First. That the Act of the Legislature of New Jersey of the9th of June, 1820, under which this vessel, foundengaged in taking oysters in Morris River Cove by meansof dredges, was seized, condemned, and sold, isrepugnant to the Constitution of the United States in thefollowing particulars :1. To the eighth section of the first article, which grantsto Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreignnations, and among the several States, and with theIndian tribes.2. To the second section of the fourth article, whichdeclares, that the citizens of each State shall be entitledto all privileges and immuni-ties of citizens in the severalStates.3. To the second section of the third article, whichdeclares, that the judicial power of the United Statesshould extend to all cases of admi-ralty and maritime jurisdiction.In case the Act should be considered as not beingexposed to these constitutional objections, it is theninsisted,Secondly. That the

locus in quo

was not within theterritorial limits of New Jersey. But if it was, then Thirdly. It was not within the jurisdiction of themagistrates of Cumberland County.Fourthly. We have to consider the objection made by thedefendant's counsel to the form of this action. The first section of the Act of New Jersey declares, that,from and after the 1st of May, till the 1st of September inevery year, no person shall rake on any oyster bed in thisState, or gather any oysters on any banks or beds withinthe same, under a penalty of $10.Second section. No person residing in, or out of this

State, shall, at any time, dredge for oysters in any of therivers, bays, or waters of the State, under the penaltyof $50. The third section prescribes the manner of proceeding,in cases of violations of the preceding sections. The two next sections have nothing to do with thepresent case. The sixth section enacts, that it shall not be lawful forany person, who is not, at the time, an actual inhabitantand resident of this State, to gather oysters in any of the rivers, bays, or waters in this State, on board of anyvessel, not wholly owned by some person, inhabitant of,or actually residing in this State; and every person sooffending, shall forfeit $10, and shall also forfeit thevessel employed in the commission of such offence, withall the oysters, rakes, &c., belonging to the same. The seventh section provides, that it shall be lawful forany person to seize and secure such vessel, and to giveinformation to two justices of the county where suchseizure shall be made, who are required to meet for thetrial of the said case, and to determine the same; and incase of condemnation, to order the said vessel, &c. to besold. The first question then is, whether this Act, or eithersection of it, is repugnant to the power granted toCongress to regulate commerce? . . .2. The next question is, whether this Act infringes thatsection of the Constitution which declares that "thecitizens of each State shall be entitled to all theprivileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"? The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation inconfining these expres- sions to those privileges andimmunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; whichbelong, of right, to the citizens of all free govern-ments;