§ 474<7.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VIII. that navigation may be in any manner connected with com- merce with foreign countries or among the several states or with the Indian tribes." l The power of Congress to regulate commerce extends to car- riers of passengers, 2 and comprehends every species of com- mercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations. 3 " Commerce undoubtedly is traffic, but it is some- thing more; it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations, which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals, in the actual employment of buying and selling, and of barter." 4 But " inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, etc.," are within the proper scope of state legis- lation. 5 § ±7±c. Regarding commerce by water, it is held that a state may authorize a city to build wharves on navigable waters and to charge fees for their use, 6 but in so doing must not discriminate against interstate commerce in favor of commerce wholly internal to the state. 7 And a state may regulate the management of vessels within its harbors. 8 It Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 197. See United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72. 2 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 215. 3 lb. 9 Wheat. 1, 190 et seq.
- Ib. 9 Wheat. 1, 189, 190.
8 lb. 9 Wheat. 1,203; Card well v. Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205; Mor- gan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455. See Conway v. Taylor's Executor, 1 Black, (503. 6 Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 466 95 U. S. 80; Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S. 430; Packet Co. v. Cat- lettsburg, 105 U. S. 559; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444. Compare Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288. 7 Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434. 8 Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299; County of Mobile v. Kim- ball, 102 U. S. 691; Wilson v. Mc- Narnee, 102 U. S. 572. But compare Foster v. Master, etc., of New Or- leans, 94 U. S. 246; Steamship Co. v. Portwardens, 6 Wall. 31.
