conditioned that passengers from abroad, now in good health, shall not become chargeable as paupers.
Whether States may circuitously impose a tax, by first exacting such bonds, and then permitting them to be commuted for a specified sum of money.
On the other hand, the following points may be regarded as well settled:
A State has the right to deny foreign paupers, or foreigners Settled pointslikely to become paupers, a residence on its borders.
A State has jurisdiction of its own ports for purposes of port regulations and harbor police, sanitary police, quarantine administration, pilotage, and the support, maintenance, and regulation of paupers, foreign and domestic.
A State has the right to be informed of the name and quality of every foreigner coming within its limits, and to impose a penalty on any ship-master failing to comply with a State law requiring him to make such report.
A State has the right to maintain paupers, foreign and domestic, and to lay a tax for that purpose on foreigners or others, when undoubtedly within its jurisdiction, and not imports or subjects of commerce.
The Federal Government has no power to maintain paupers, foreign or domestic, or to levy taxes for that purpose.
A law of Congress, regulating commerce, is paramount to any State law purporting or pretending to do the same.
A State law pretending to subserve a legitimate object of State legislation, but in fact aiming at and effecting a disturbance of commercial regulations made by Congress, is unconstitutional and void.
A State cannot impose a tax on passengers coming into its ports from the ports of other States.
And it seems to be the better opinion, that a State cannot legislate for the regulation of foreign or inter-State commerce on the ground that it does not interfere with any existing act of Congress.
