Opinion of the court. an assumption that it was justified by the language of this court in Gibbons v. Ogden,* and where in speaking of inspection laws, this court say: "They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the General government, all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. 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, ferrios, &c., are component parts of this mass." The court below granted a perpetual injunction, and Peete, the health officer, brought the case here on appeal from this decree. The question was: Can a State levy a tonnage tax on vessels owned in foreign ports, and entering her harbors in the pursuit of commerce, in order to defray the expenses of her quarantine regulations? Mr. P. Phillips, for Morgan, the appellee; no counsel appearing for the health officer, Peete, the appellant. Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. That the power to establish quarantine laws rests with the States, and has not been surrendered to the General government is settled in Gibbons v. Ogden. The source of this power is in the acknowledged right of a State to provide for the health of its people, and although this power when set in motion may in a greater or less degree affect commerce, yet the laws passed in the exercise of this power are not enacted for such an object. They are enacted for the sole purpose of preserving the public health, and if they injuriously affect commerce, Congress, under the power to regulate it, may control them. Of necessity, they operate on vessels engaged in commerce, and may produce delay or in * 9 Wheaton, 203. Opinion of the court. convenience, but they are still lawful when not opposed to any constitutional provision, or any act of Congress on the subject. It is evident that the power to establish quarantine regulations cannot be executed without the State possesses the means to raise a revenue for their euforcement, but it is equally evident that the means used for this purpose must be of such a character as the restrictions imposed by the Federal Constitution upon the taxing power of the States authorize. We are not called upon in this case to go into the general subject of the limitations imposed by these restrictions, because the tax in question is manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the State to impose; as it is a "duty of tonnage," within the meaning of the Constitution. This duty was doubtless imposed to raise revenue, but Chief Justice Marshall, in commenting on this subject in Gibbons v. Ogden, says: “It is true, that duties may often be, and in fact often are, imposed on tonnage, with a view to the regulation of commerce; but they may be also imposed with a view to revenue; and it was, therefore, a prudent precaution to prohibit the States from exercising this power." This power cannot be exercised without the permission of Congress, and Congress has never consented that the States should lay any duty on tonnage. On the contrary, so apprehensive was Congress that its legislation in 1799,* directing the collectors of customs and officers commanding forts and revenue cutters to aid in the execution of the quarantine and health laws of the States, rendered necessary on account of the prevalence of yellow fever in New York, might be construed into an admission of the right of the States to lay this duty, that it used the following words of exclusion: "That nothing herein shall enable any State to collect a duty of tonnage or impost, without the consent of the Congress of the United States thereto." It is, however, not necessary to discuss this subject, as it has been recently fully considered by this court in the State * 1 Stat. at Large, 619. Syllabus. Tonnage Tax Cuses, reported in 12th Wallace.* In these cases the law of Alabama levied a tax at so much per ton on all steamboats. The boats on which the tax was levied were owned by citizens of the State, and were employed exclusively in the internal commerce of the State, over which Congress has no control. This court, while conceding the full power of the State to tax the property of its citizens, held that the inhibition in the Federal Constitution prevented the State from taxing in this mode. Much more does this inhibition apply when the vessels are owned by citizens of another State, and are engaged in commerce between the States, over which Congress has control. DECREE AFFIRMED. RAILROAD COMPANY V. RICHMOND ET AL. 1. The act of Congress of June 15th, 1866, authorizing every railroad company in the United States, whose rond was operated by steam, and its successors and assigns, to carry upon and over its road, boats, bridges, and ferries all passengers, troops, governinent supplies, mails, freight, and property, on their way from one State to another State, and to receive compensation therefor, and to connect with roads of other States so far as to form continuous lines for the transportation of the same to their place of destination; and the act of July 25th, 1866, authorizing the construction of certain bridges over the Mississippi River, and among others a bridge connecting Dubuque with Dunleith, in the State of Illinois, and providing that the bridges, when constructed, should be free for the crossing of all trains of railroads terminating on either side of the river, for reasonable compensation, were designed to remove trammels upon transportation between different States, interposed by State enactments or by existing laws of Congress, and were not intended to interfere with private contracts and annul such as had been made on the basis of existing legislation and existing means of interstate communication. 2. Contracts valid when made, continue valid, and capable of enforcement, so long as peace lasts between the governments of the contracting parties, notwithstanding a change in the conditions of business which originally led to their creation. * Page 204. Statement of the case. 3. The power to regulate commerce among the several States was vested in Congress in order to secure equality and freedom in commercial intercourse against discriminating State legislation; it was not intended that the power should be exercised so as to interfere with private contracts not designed at the time they were made to create impediments to such intercourse. 4 Accordingly, a contract between a railroad company and an elevator company, that the latter company, in consideration of erecting and using for that purpose an elevator, should have for a prescribed term the handling, at a stipulated price, of all grain brought by the railroad company in its cars to the city of Dubuque, on the Mississippi River, to be transmitted to a place beyond, did not cease to be valid and binding upon the parties because afterwards, by the construction of a railroad bridge across the Mississippi at Dubuque it became unnecessary for the railroad company or its lessee, and a useless expense to it, to have the grain brought by it to Dubuque handled at that place. The enforcement of the contract after the construction of the bridge was not an interference with the power of Congress to regulate commerce between the States. ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa; the case being thus: On the 22d of August, 1860, the Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad Company and the Dubuque Elevator Company, corporations, created both by the laws of Iowa, entered into a contract by which the elevator company was to construct an elevator for receiving, storing, handling, and delivering grain brought by the cars of the railroad company to Dubuque City. On the 2d of January, 1861, a supplemental agreement relating to the same subject was eutered into between the same companies; the two contracts, as the court held, being, to be considered together as forming one. By that contract the elevator company, on its part, stipu lated, among other things, to erect on land leased from the railroad company, situated at Dubuque, in the State of Iowa, a building suitable for receiving, storing, delivering, and handling all graiu that should be received by the cars of the railroad company, not otherwise consigned, and to make such additions to the building from time to time as the business of the company might require; to receive and discharge at Dubuque for the company all through grain—by which was meant all grain transmitted, by the terms of shipment, Statement of the case. through that place to some point beyond-at one cent a bushel, and make no charge for storage unless the grain was in store more than ten days, and then only at certain specified rates; and, at the end of fifteen years, the term of the lease, to renew the contract for another fifteen years, or, at the option of the railroad company, accept payment for its buildings, machinery, and other property used in conducting its business. And the railroad company, on its part, stipulated that it would not erect a similar building for receiving, storing, delivering, and handling grain at Dubuque, or lease to any others the right to erect any such building; that the elevator company should have the handling at Dubuque of all through grain, and be paid one cent a bushel for receiving and discharging the same, and the compensation designated for storage when it exceeded ten days. The elevator company erected the buildings required, sufficient and suitable for the purposes intended, and had always been ready to carry out its stipulations. On the 13th of September, 1867, the Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad Company leased its road and other property to the Illinois Central Railroad Company. In this lease the Illinois company expressly assumed the contract mentioned, made with the elevator company, and soon afterwards entered into possession of the leased property, and commenced transferring grain from Dubuque across the Mississippi River, which had been brought to that point in the cars of the Dubuque and Sioux City Railroad Company. But it did not regard the stipulations of the contract with the elevator company, or only partially performed them; grain was shipped through Dubuque without being delivered to or handled by that company, and without payment of the charges which it claimed as entitled to under the contract; and the present suit was brought in a District Court of the State of Iowa by one Richmond, who had succeeded to the rights of the elevator company, to enforce the contract. The defence was that the contract as now sued on was repugnant to what is called "the commercial power of Con |