BBOEOK V. BABCni 30WX U. WBLOH. 883 �It embraces, necessarily, ail engaged in trade and commerce upon the public navigable waters of the United States. Every ressel employed in Buch trade and commerce may traverse those waters without let or hindrance from local or Btate authority; and the national constitution secures to ail BO employed, without reference to the residence or citizenship of the owners, the privilege of landing at the port of Balti- more -with any cargo -whatever not excluded therefrom by, nt under the authority of, some statute of Maryland enacted m the exercise of its police powers. The state, it will be ftdmitted, could not lawfully impose upon such cargo any «direct public burden or tax because it may consist, in whole or in part, of the products of other states. The concession of such a power to the states "vrould render wholly nuga- tory ail national control of commerce among the states, and place the trade and business of the country at th» mercy of local regulations, having for their object to secure exclusive benefits to the citizens and products of particular Btates. But it is claimed that a Btate may empower one of its political agencies, a mere municipal corporation, repre- •enting a portion of its civil power, to burden inter-state ïiommerce by exacting from those transporting to its wharves the products of other states wharfage fees which it does not exact from those bringing to the same wharves the products of Maryland. The city can no more do this than it or the state could discriminate against the citizens or products of other states in the use of the public streets or other public highways. The city of Baltimore, if it chooses, can permit the public wharves which it owns to be used without charge. Under the authority of the state it may also exact wharfage fees, equally, from ail who use its improved wharves, pro- • vided such charges do not exeeed what is a tsAr renumeration for the use of its property. Northwestern Pocket Co. v. City of St. Louis, 12 Chicago Legal News, 225, and City of Vicksburg v. Tobin, Id., decided at the present term; Packet Oo. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80. But it cannot employ the property it thiis holds for public use so as to hinder, obstruct or burden inter-state commerce, in the interest of commerce wholly internai to that ����
