HARBOR (Sax.lhere-berga, station for an army). A place where ships may ride with safety ; any navigable water protected by the surrounding country ; a haven. It is public property.
Harbor is to be distinguished from "port," which has a reference to the delivery of cargo. See 7 M. & G. 870; Martin v. Hilton, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 371; 2 B. & AId. 460. Thus, we have the "said harbor, basin, and docks of the port of 114111." 2 B. & Ald. 60. But they are generally used as synonymous. Webster, Diet.
In the United States the control of har bors and regulation of dock lines and the like is exercised by the states, although un der the power to regulate commerce the fed eral government annually expends large sums of money in the improvement of navi gation in harbors and other navigable wa ters.
A state may enact police regulations for the conduct of shipping in any of its har bors; Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 351; Cooley, Const. Lim. 730 ; and congress has power to make regulations on the same subject ; Cooley. v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. (11. S.) 299, 13 L. Ed. 996; Barnaby V. State, 21 Ind. 450; Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 450, 17 L. Ed. 805; Cisco v. Roberts, 36 N. Y. 292. A statute passed for the protection of a harbor, which forbids removal of stone, gravel, and sand from the peach, is constitutional ; Com. v. Tewksbury, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 55 ; and the United States has the authority to make a contract for the removal of rock from a har bor ; Benner v. Dredging Co., 134 N. Y. 156, 31 N. E. 328, 17 L. R. A. 220, 30 Am. St. Rep. 649.
New harbor lines may established with out further legislative authority, and such establishment is a practical discontinuance of the old lines ; Farist Steel Co. v. City of Bridgeport, 60 Conn. 278, 22 Atl. 561, 13 L. R. A. 590. The state board of harbor com missioners has power to establish harbor lines in front of towns ; State v. Board of Com'rs, 4 Wash. 6, 29 Pac. 938 ; and an act which provides for the disestablishment of such lines is contrary to the state constitu tion and void; Wilson v. Board of Com'rs, 13 Wash. 65, Pac. 524; such an act on the part of such commissioners does not de prive a riparian owner of the right of access to his land, but merely determines the line to which he may fill without encroaching on public rights ; Sherman v. Sherman, 18 R. I. 504, 30 Atl. 459. The mere establishment of general harbor lines by such commission ers is not of itself ,an injury or a taking of the property and cannot be enjoined ; Pross er v. R. Co., 152 U. S. 59, 14 Sup. Ct. 528, 38
L. Ed. 352. The authority to make improve ments in harbors implies the power, to em ploy all necessary means thereto ; Bateman v. Colgan, 111 Cal. 580, 44 Pac. 238.
In England, as well as Scotland, the right to erect and hold ports and havens is vested in the crown ; though a subject may have such right by charter, grant, or prescription, but in all cases charged with the right of the public to use it. In England such gran tee is bound to repair, but in Scotland only to the extent of the dues received.
The insufficiency of the common-law power led to an extended course of legislation for the control of ports and harbors, through what is known in Great Britain as the har bor authority, which is vested in commis sioners or bodies corporate or otherwise. Such bodies are charged with the duty of general supervision of the construction, ex tension, improvement, and lighting of the harbor and collection of dues therefrom. The general consolidation act of 10 Vict. c. 271, defined these duties and powers in de tail as did the general act of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 47, supplemented by various local acts.
In Torts. To receive clandestinely or with out lawful authority a person for the pur pose of so concealing him that another hav ing a right to the lawful custody of such person shall be deprived of the same. Van Metre v. Mitchell, 2 Wall. Jr. 317, Fed. Cas. No. 16,865. For example, the harboring of a wife or an apprentice in order to deprive the husband or the master of them ; or, in a less technical sense, it is the reception per sons improperly ; Poll. Torts 275 ; Wood v. Gale, 10 N. H. 247, 34 Am. Dec. 150 ; Eells v. People, 4 Scam. (III.) 498.
It may be aptly used to describe the fur nishing of shelter, lodging, or food clandes tinely or with concealment, and under cer tain circumstances, may be equally applica ble to those acts divested of any accompany ing secrecy ; U. S. v. Grant, 55 Fed. 415.
The harboring of such persons will sub ject the harborer to an action for the injury; but, in order to put him completely in the wrong, a demand should be made for their restoration, for in cases where the harborer has not committed any other wrong than merely receiving the plaintiff's wife, child, or apprentice, he may be under no obligation to return them without a demand ; 1 Chit. Pr. 564 ; .Dark v. Marsh, 4 N. C. 228 ; Jones v. Van Zandt, 5 How. (U. S.) 215, 227, 12 L. Ed. 122. See ENTICE.