## Facts

- The steamer *Daniel Ball* operated solely on Michigan’s Grand River, carrying passengers and merchandise between Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Grand Haven, Michigan.
- The vessel’s trips were entirely within Michigan, but its freight included goods moving as part of interstate trade, including flour shipped from Grand Rapids for delivery to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and merchandise shipped from New York and other states to Milwaukee and then sent on to Grand Haven for forwarding to Grand Rapids.
- Federal steamboat statutes required certain steam vessels engaged in covered commerce to obtain federal inspection certificates and a federal license; *Daniel Ball* operated without the required inspection and licensing.
- The United States filed a libel seeking a $500 statutory penalty for operating the vessel without the required federal papers.
- The owners defended on the ground that the vessel’s service was intrastate and that the relevant portion of the Grand River was not a “navigable water of the United States” for purposes of federal regulation.
- The district court dismissed the government’s action, but the circuit court reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether a vessel running only between ports in a single state is subject to federal licensing and inspection requirements when it carries goods (or passengers) moving in interstate commerce.
2. Whether the Grand River, though located within Michigan, constitutes a “navigable water of the United States” because it connects through other waters to an interstate commercial highway.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the United States and held the federal licensing and inspection requirements applied to the *Daniel Ball*.
- The Court held the relevant portion of the Grand River was a navigable water of the United States because, in its ordinary condition, it formed (through its connection to Lake Michigan and other waters) a continued water route for commerce with other states and foreign countries.
- The Court held the *Daniel Ball* was engaged in commerce among the states because the character of the traffic it carried was interstate: it transported goods destined to other states and goods arriving from other states as part of commercial movement.
- Because the vessel was an instrumentality used in interstate commerce, Congress could require federal inspection and licensing, and the statutory penalty was properly imposed.

## Legal Principles

- “Navigable waters of the United States” are not limited to tidal waters; federal authority turns on practical commercial use and capacity.
- Waters are “navigable in fact” when, in their ordinary condition, they are used or are capable of use as highways for commerce in customary waterborne modes of travel and trade.
- A river lying wholly within one state is a navigable water of the United States when, by itself or by connection with other waters, it forms a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries.
- For Commerce Clause purposes, the relevant question is the character of the transportation (what the vessel carries and where that trade is headed), not whether the vessel’s own route crosses a state line.
- Commerce among the states begins when a commodity starts to move as an article of trade from one state to another; transportation that forms part of that movement is subject to congressional regulation.
- Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce through safety and licensing measures, including inspection requirements and penalties for noncompliance.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained federal inspection and licensing requirements as applied to the *Daniel Ball*, holding that a river wholly within one state may still be a navigable water of the United States when it connects to interstate commercial routes, and that a vessel running only intrastate is engaged in interstate commerce when it carries goods moving to or from other states as part of trade.


United States v. The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557 (1870)