## Facts

- New York enacted a 1824 law requiring masters of vessels arriving at the Port of New York from foreign ports or other U.S. states to report, within 24 hours and under oath, identifying information about passengers brought to the state.
- The law imposed a monetary penalty per passenger for failure to report or false reporting.
- A related provision authorized city officials to require security to reimburse the city if passengers or their children became public charges within a specified period, with additional penalties for noncompliance.
- The City of New York sued George Miln, master of the ship *Emily*, seeking statutory penalties after the ship arrived with approximately 100 passengers and Miln allegedly failed to make the required report.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s passenger-reporting requirement and penalties were an unconstitutional regulation of foreign and interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.
2. Whether the statute was a permissible exercise of state authority to protect public welfare, including measures aimed at preventing pauperism and crime.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional as applied to the reporting provisions at issue.
- The Court concluded the reporting requirement did not regulate commerce between New York and foreign ports; it operated as a public-welfare measure within state authority.
- The majority declined to decide whether states possess concurrent power to regulate foreign commerce when Congress has not legislated.
- A concurrence would have upheld the statute on the ground that, absent federal legislation, states may act concurrently even in matters affecting foreign commerce.
- A lone dissent maintained that transporting and landing passengers is commerce and that the statute impermissibly imposed conditions on foreign commerce reserved to Congress.

## Legal Principles

- A state may enact police measures to protect public safety and prevent the state from bearing costs associated with indigent or dangerous arrivals, even if the measure affects vessels engaged in commerce.
- When a law is characterized as addressing public welfare rather than trade, it may fall within reserved state powers and avoid invalidation as a commerce regulation.
- The decision left unresolved the broader allocation question whether state and federal authority over foreign commerce is exclusive to Congress or may be concurrent in the absence of federal action.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained New York’s passenger-reporting requirement as a valid exercise of state police power aimed at protecting the community from becoming responsible for newly arrived paupers or criminals, rather than as a prohibited state regulation of foreign or interstate commerce.


Mayor of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837)