tage over the others, there being no power the City of New York, holding that the ques under the Articles of Confederation to regu tion had, after an elaborate and profound dis late or control this great and essential sub cussion, been decided in the previous case ject. This experience led to a provision in of Livingston г. Van Ingen. (9 Johnson's the Constitution (Article I., Sec. 8, Par. 3) Reports, 507, 1812.) At the January term, in these words: "The Congress shall have 1820, the highest court of the State unani power ... to regulate commerce with for mously affirmed Chancellor Kent's order, eign natiuns and among the several States." holding the exclusive monopoly in the grants This truly vital power, as respects foreign made by the Legislature of New York to be and domestic commerce, is contained in valid, and that its Court of Chancery had the eleven words —"to regulate commerce with power to restrain citizens of another State foreign nations and among the several from navigating the waters of New York with States." There is no attempt to define what is vessels propelled by steam, although such vessels may have been duly enrolled and li "commerce,'1 or what is meant by "regula tion." The case involved the respective pow censed under the laws of the United States ers of Congress and the States over com as coasting vessels. It was this last case that came by due pro merce. The circumstances out of which that case cess of law before the Supreme Court of the arose and under which the decision of Mar United States, The cause was argued by shall was made, are extremely interesting. counsel of the greatest eminence; Wirt and There were enacted by the State of New Webster against the constitutionality of the York five different statutes between the years New York legislation; Emmett and Oak 1798 and 1811. granting or confirming to ley in favor of it. That Court reversed the Livingston and Fulton, or one of them, the decree of the New York courts and held that exclusive right of using steamboats upon all the power of the general government to regu the navigable rivers, bays and waters within late commerce extends to navigation in the the limits and jurisdiction of the State of waters throughout the entire Union, and New York for a specified term of years. does not stop at the external boundary of a One provision was that for each additional State, and that the grants to Livingston and boat which could be propelled by steam with Fulton of an exclusive right to navigate all or against the current of the Hudson River, waters within the jurisdiction of the State at not less than four miles an hour, they of New York, by steamboats, was inoper should be entitled to five years' extension to ative as against the laws of the United States their grant, not to exceed thirty years. If regulating the coasting trade, and could not good for thirty years, the State could, of restrain vessels licensed under these laws course, renew or extend it indefinitely. For from navigating waters within the jurisdic the specified period the State granted a mo tion of a State in the prosecution of such nopoly, under pain of forfeiture of boats and trade. The opinion of the Court was delivered vessels owned by others which should violarte by Chief Justice Marshall. He defined, for the exclusive right granted to Livingston the first time, the meaning of the word "comand Fulton. These acts recited that the in ducement to the grant was to encourage the merce" as used in the Constitution. He said grantee to engage in the uncertainty and it includes navigation. It includes trade and hazard of making expensive experiments in commerce. But he went further and said that it is intercourse itself. He defined also the improving steam navigation. . . Chancellor Kent enjoined the defendant word "regulate" in a definition which it has Ogden from running his two steamboats be been justly said can nev?r be excelled in its tween Elizabethtown. in New Jersey, and brevity, accuracy and comprehensiveness.
