ing said steamship Britannia from landing illegal action of said board and the members in the state of Louisiana and discharging thereof would cause petitioners to suffer said passengers therein, inasmuch as for heavy damages in the way of loss of busisome time prior thereto, and even subse- ness, for the reason that the agents of said quent to the passage of said ordinance, said steamship in the city of New Orleans had board of health had permitted large bodies procured for, and bound said ship to receive, of persons coming directly from the same a large and complete cargo of freight desports in Italy and Sicily via the port of tined for ports in Europe, for all of which New York to be brought into the city of damage the defendants were liable in soNew Orleans by various railroad companies, lido to petitioners. That, by reason of said and ever since the promulgation of said arbitrary and illegal action of said board ordinance more than 200 such persons, vary- and the members thereof, petitioners had aling in groups of from 30 to 100 in number, ready suffered damages from the cause had from time to time been permitted to en- aforesaid in the sum of $2,500; and they reter said city. That said state board of served their right to amend their petition, health pretended to base its right to thus and claim of said board and the members exclude persons in good health, and not af- thereof in solido any further damage which fected with any contagious or infectious they might suffer in the premises. That, disease, from the port of New Orleans and unless said state board of health be reneighboring territory, upon the authority strained by the court, it would persist in of said act No. 192 of 1898, and especially its illegal and arbitrary refusal to permit under the following portion of § 8 of said said steamer to land said passengers in the act, to wit: "The state board of health, in city of New Orleans, to the great and its discretion, may prohibit the introduc-irreparable injury of petitioners; and petition into any infected portion of the state, tioners averred that, for the protection of of persons acclimated, unacclimated, or said their rights in the premises, they were entito be immune, when in its judgment the in- tled to, and desired, a writ of injunction, troduction of such persons would add to or directed against the said board of health, increase the prevalence of the disease." That its officers and agents, prohibiting and ensaid portion of said § 8 of said act No. 192 joining them, and each of them, from inof 1898 did not confer upon the state board terfering with or preventing the landing of health the right to exclude healthy per- of said steamship at the port of New sons from coming from various foreign ports Orleans, and from unloading and disinto the port of New Orleans, as pretended charging its passengers. In view of the by them; and, if said section did so con- premises, petitioners prayed that said state fer upon said board said pretended right board of health, its president, the said and authority, same was in violation of Edmond Souchon, Hampden S. Lewis, and the Constitution of the United States, in- Charles A. Gaudet, be cited; that a writ of asmuch as it was an attempt on the part injunction issue, directed to said board of of the state of Louisiana to regulate or health, enjoining and prohibiting it, and its prohibit commerce from foreign countries officers, agents, and employees, and each of into the United States, or to authorize the them, from enforcing said resolution or orregulation or prohibition thereof by said dinance of said board of date 29th Septemboard, and was especially in contravention ber, 1898, or from prohibiting or interferof article 1, § 8, 13, thereof, which provided ing in any manner with petitioners' bringthat Congress shall have exclusive power ing their said steamship Britannia to the to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states; and petitioners specially pleaded and claimed the benefit and protection of said provision of the Constitution. Petitioners averred that this arbitrary and illegal action of the state board of health, and the individual members thereof, by detaining said vessel at the quarantine station, and preventing her from proceeding to the city of New Orleans and there discharging her passengers and cargo, had caused great damage, and was causing and would continue to cause petitioners further damage to an amount of more than $500 for every day that said vessel was prohibited from discharging said passengers, for the reason that, by law and by contract, petitioners were compelled to furnish said passengers with lodging and with food, and, besides, were subjected to a heavy expense in the way of wages for its crew and officers, and various other and sundry expenses which they would not be compelled to suffer were they permitted to land said vessel and discharge its passengers and cargo, as they had a right to do. That said arbitrary and port of New Orleans, and there discharging its passengers and cargo; that there be judgment in favor of petitioners, and against said state board of health and Edmond Souchon, Hampden S. Lewis, and Charles A. Gaudet, in solido, in the full sum of $2,500 damages, with legal interest from judicial demand, and reserving unto petitioners the right to claim from said defendants any further damages which they might thereafter be caused by their said illegal acts; that said portion of § 8 of said act No. 192 of 1898, set forth, be declared null and void, as being in contravention of the Constitution of the United States; and that said writ of injunction be made perpetual. In the second of these petitions, they alleged: That since the filing of the original petition they had suffered additional damages as thereinafter set forth, in a sum exceeding $8,500, for which, for the reasons set forth in their original petition and in said second petition, the defendants were liable to them in solido. That said damage was occasioned by reason of the illegal, unjust, and arbitrary action aforesaid of said tion, extra compensation to its agents in state board of health, and said individual members thereof, in the exclusion from the city and port of New Orleans of said vessel and passengers, some of whom were subjects of the King of Italy, entitled to the protection of the treaties between said sovereign and the United States, and who in tended to avail themselves of the laws of the United States regulating immigration, by entering the state of Louisiana to establish residence in said state or adjoining states. That said immigrants and other passengers were so exciuded and prevented from landing notwithstanding the fact that said steamer Britannia had complied with all the laws of the United States regulating commerce with foreign nations, quarantine, and immigration into the United States, and notwithstanding that said immigrants were coming from ports which were not infected with any contagious or infectious disease, and were not themselves infected with any such disease, but were at the time of their departure, and at all times thereafter, free from any infectious or contagious diseases, or diseases that were like ly to affect the public health of the citizens of New Orleans or state of Louisiana, and were, under the immigration laws, entitled to enter. That petitioners had no notice of the intended action of the defendant in so prohibiting the landing of said passengers and immigrants until the arrival of their steamer Britannia at the port of New Orleans; said steamer having sailed prior to the declaration by said board of the existence of an infectious disease in the city of New Orleans. That, by reason of the illegal and arbitrary conduct of the defendants, petitioners were compelled for many days to keep said vessel moored in the river below the city of New Orleans, with all of its said passengers, crew, and cargo aboard. That, as said defendants persisted in their said illegal and arbitrary refusal to permit the landing of said immigrants and passengers, in order to minimize as much as possible its damages, petitioners were compelled to send their said steamer to the port of Pensacola, Florida, which was the nearest available port to the port of New Orleans, and there disembark said immigrants and passengers, and thereafter to cause their said steamer to return to the port of New Orleans to discharge its cargo. That said voyage to and from Pensacola, from and to New Orleans, so occasioned, caused a loss of time to said vessel, even with the utmost despatch, of more than three weeks. That during the illegal detention of said vessel in the Mississippi river, and during the voy-board, I have to inform you that under the age to Pensacola, and while in said port, pe- provisions of the new state board of health titioners were at great expense in the main- law, § 8, of which I inclose a marked copy, tenance and care of said immigrants, pas- this board has adopted a resolution forbidsengers, and crew of said vessel. Moreover, ding the landing of any body of people in petitioners suffered great damages, as any town, city or parish in quarantine. would be shown on the trial of the case, in Under this resolution the immigrants now the way of extra wages of officers and crew, on board the Britannia cannot be landed extra fuel and supplies consumed on said in any of the following parishes of Louisvoyage between New Orleans and Pensaco- iana, namely: Orleans, St. Bernard, Jefla, as well as during the said illegal deten-ferson (right bank), St. Tammany, Plaque Annexed by plaintiffs to their petition was a copy of the resolution of the board of health, and of the notice served upon plaintiffs, which they had referred to in their pleadings. The notice reads as follows: Louisiana State Board of Health, September 29th, 1898. Messrs. Jas. Sawyers & Son, Agent S. S. Britannia, New Orleans, La. Referring to the detention of the S. S. Britannia at the Miss. river quarantine station, with 408 Italian immigrants on mines, St. Charles, or St. John. You will therefore govern yourself accordingly. Respectfully, [Signed] Edmond Souchon, M. D., President Louisiana State Board of Health. The resolution read as follows: "Resolved. that hereafter, in the case of any town, city, or parish of Louisiana being declared in quarantine, no body or bodies of people, immigrants, soldiers, or others, shall be allowed to enter said town, city, or parish so long as said quarantine shall exist, and that the president of the board shall enforce this resolution." the rules, ordinances, and regulations of the board made therein, and, in his discre tion, to call special meetings of the board whenever, in his opinion, an emergency should require it. By the 3d section the board was granted all the powers, authority, and jurisdiction then possessed by the existing board of health under the laws then in force, except in so far as modified and changed by the provisions of the new law. It was given exclusive jurisdiction, control, and authority over maritime quarantine within the state, as then provided by existing laws. It was also given supervisory power over land quarantine, and over the At the time of the adoption of the Con- care and control of infectious and contastitution of 1898 there existed in the state gious diseases within the state, in order to of Louisiana a state board of health, with accomplish the subsidence and suppression powers and duties defined and fixed by law. thereof, and to prevent the spread of the Article 296 of that Constitution directed same. Such supervision and control was dithat the general assembly should create for rected to be exercised in the manner and to the state, and for each parish and munici- the extent laid down in the act. By the 8th pality therein, boards of health, and should section it was enacted that in case any pardefine their duties and prescribe the powers ish, town, or city should become infected thereof. On the 14th of July, 1898, the gov- with any contagious or infectious disease to ernor of the state approved act No. 192, such an extent as to threaten the spread of enacted by the general assembly at the ses- such disease to other portions of the state, sion of 1898. The act was entitled "An the state board of health was directed to isAct to Carry into Effect Article 296 of the sue its proclamation declaring the facts, Constitution of the State of Louisiana in and ordering it in quarantine, and to order Relation to Boards of Health; to Protect the local boards of health in other parishes, and Preserve the Public Health; to Provide towns, and cities to quarantine against for the Establishment and Organization of said locality; and it was further directed a State Board of Health and Parish and to establish and promulgate the rules Municipal Boards of Health; to Define the and regulations, terms and conditions, on Powers, Duty, and Authority of Said which intercourse with said infected loBoards; to Provide for the Appointment cality should be permitted. The state board and Election of Officers and Employees of of health was authorized, at its discretion, said Board; to Authorize the State Board to prohibit the introduction into any into Prepare and Promulgate a Sanitary fected portions of the state of persons acCode for the State of Louisiana, and Fixing climated, unacclimated, or said to be imPenalties for the Violation Thereof; to mune, when, in its judgment, the introduc Provide for the General Sanitation of the tion of such persons would add to or inState, and a Local Sanitation of the Parish- crease the prevalence of the disease. es and Municipalities; to Authorize the Reg- Plaintiffs contend that the state board of ulation of the Isolation of Cases of Infec- health requires that the court should read tious and Contagious Diseases, and a Mar- in the 8th section of act No. 192 of 1898 a itime and Land Quarantine against Places grant of authority to prohibit the introducInfected with Such Diseases; to Repeal all tion into the state of healthy persons comLaws and Parts of Laws, Special and Gen- ing from places not infected with infectious eral, in Conflict with the Provisions of This or contagious diseases. In their brief they Act; and to Provide for the Succession of say: "If this was the intention of the leg the Boards Created by This Act to All Pow- islature, why did it express its objects to be ers, Authority, Rights, Claims, and Prop- 'to authorize a maritime and land quaranety of the Present Boards." By the 2d sec-tine' against places 'infected' with conta tion of the act the duties and powers of the gious or infectious diseases? If an authorpresident and secretary and treasurer of the state board were declared to be those incident to like officers in similar corporations, and also such other powers and duties as then devolved by law upon their predecessors in the existing board, as well as those additionally prescribed by the provisions of the act. In addition to said powers and duties already prescribed by existing laws, the president was granted the power, after the adjournment of the board, and during the interval of time between the meetings of the board and when the board was not in session, to issue all orders and warrants, and to take all necessary steps to execute the sanitary laws of the state, and to carry out ity was intended to be given to establish maritime quarantine against any place whatsoever, without reference to the exis tence of disease there, the legislature would certainly not have qualified the noun 'places' by the adjective 'infected.' It is clear that the effect of that adjective is to qualify and make special what was before general; to limit the number, and, as it were, to put a badge upon, the places against which maritime quarantine can be declared, and hence to put a restriction upon the power of the board. If the existence of disease at some place, or in relation to some individual, was not a condition upon the board's power to quarantine, it inevitably follows that the act contains something supremely important, not expressed in its title, namely, a power to quarantine against any place, and exclude from the state any people whatsoever, totally irrespective of the existence of infectious or contagious disease in relation to such person or place. We submit that the court will not adopt a course of reasoning which leads to this result. It must presume that the legislature intended to obey article 31 of the Constitution, and to sanction no object in the act not expressed in the title. A fortiori will the court indulge the presumption when it finds that the title of the act declares the intention of conferring a limited and defined, as opposed to a general, power, as the legislature was bound by the constitutional mandate to do; that the measure of the power granted in relation to maritime quarantine is declared by the act to be fixed by existing laws in force, which laws are conceded, by the contention of the defendants in this case, to confer on ly a limited power. And plaintiffs urge: That, if the statute of 1898 did authorize the state board of health to exclude from this state healthy persons coming from other states or from foreign countries, it was not a lawful exercise of the legislative power by the state of Louisiana. That the statute, on its face and as applied, is void for the reason that it is in violation of article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, because it vests authority in the state board of health, in its discretion, to interfere with or prohibit foreign commerce; because it deprives the plaintiff of its liberty and property without due process of law, and denies it the equal protection of the law, in violation of § 1 of the 14th Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; because it denies rights, privileges, and immunities secured to subjects of the King of Italy and to the citizens of the Republic of France by treaties between the United States and said countries, in that it vests the board of health with power to deny the right of free visitation and trade to Italian subjects and French citizens, as granted by said treaties; because it is in conflict with the immigration laws of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States." clauses of the title. It would be very properly covered, either by its declared object of "carrying into effect article 296 of the Constitution of the state in relation to boards of health, providing for the establishment and organization of a state board of health, and of defining the power, duty, and authority of said board;" or its object "of protecting and preserving the public health;" or "of authorizing the regulation of the isolation of infectious and contagious diseases." We have ourselves recently held, in the case of Allopathic State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Fowler, 50 La. Ann. 1358, 24 So. 809, that it is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of the title, if the title indicates the general pur poses of the law, without specifying in detail each particular provision of the law. See, on this subject, 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 229 et seq.; Cooley, Const. Lim. p. 173; State v. Crowley, 33 La. Ann. 783; State v. Dalon, 35 La. Ann. 1141; Louisiana Board v. Dupuy, 37 La. Ann. 188. Appellants urge upon us that the general assembly did not intend, by and through act No. 192 of 1898, to confer upon the state board of health the power which it exercised, of preventing them from landing the Britannia and its passengers, as stated in their petition, nor did it do so. We do not think this proposition well founded. There is nothing in the terms of the statute which would justify us in giving to it the narrow construction for which plaintiffs contend. The fact that the title contains a clause to authorize a "maritime and land quarantine against places infected with infectious and contagious diseases" is not inconsistent with, nor does it control or circumscribe, the broad and general terms of other clauses. Appellees properly claim that it in no wise affects the "power," "duty," and "authority" of the board to prevent the spread of the disease, when once introduced, by quarantining against persons coming into an infected district. The act, in its title, authorizes the state board to regulate the isolation of cases of infectious and contagious diseases, leaving it to adopt the method to be pursued for bringing about this isolation. In its body it confers, in very broad terms, a supervisory power over the We would not render act No. 192 of 1898 care and control of infectious diseases withunconstitutional, as violative of article 31 in the state, "in order to accomplish the of the Constitution of 1898, which declares subsidence and suppression thereof and to that "every law enacted by the general as- prevent the spread of the same." That no sembly shall embrace but one object, and doubt could exist as to the scope of the that shall be expressed by its title," by power it conferred upon the board "the holding that that act conferred authority right to regulate the terms and conditions upon the state board of health to prohibit on which intercourse with infected localthe introduction into any infected portion ities should be permitted," and, in clear, of the state of persons acclimated, unacclimated, or said to be immune, coming on shipboard from foreign countries and ports, whether infected or not, when, in its judgment, the introduction of such persons would add to or increase the prevalence of the disease. Were we to hold that the act conferred such power, the granting of the power in the body of the act could be very legitimately referred to several different unambiguous language, authorized it, at its discretion, to prohibit the introduction into any infected portion of the state of persons acclimated, unacclimated, or said to be immune, when, in its judgment, the introduction of such persons would add to or increase the prevalence of the disease. The law does not limit the board to prohibiting the introduction of persons from one portion of the state to another and an infected por It was to ward off these dangers that this tion of the state, but evidently looked as the law, or to deny to any person . . It is not to be doubted that the |