my 13, 1966 

Hon. D. Roy Barrington 

Chairman, Interstate Co-. 

operatfon Committee 

State Senate 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Senator Harrington: 

Your letter requesting 

in part as follows: 

1. 

2. 

an opinion of this offlce reads 

Opinion No, C-684 

Re: If, after a Foreign 

vessel or an American vessel under registry has 

arrived at a port of entry 

a Sablne District Branch 

Pilot docks or undocks the 

vessel, may the Board of 

Pilot Commissioners by 

virtue of Vernon's Civil 

Statutes, Articles 8264, 

8267, 8268 and 8274 authorize the Branch Pilot to 

make an additional charge 

for this service and related question? 

"If, after a Foreign vessel or an American 

vessel under registry has arrived at Ia 

port of entry', a Sabine District Branch 

Pilot docks or undocks the vessel, may the 

Board of Pilot Commissioners (by virtue of 

Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, Articles 

8264, 8267, 8268 and 8274) authorize the 

Branch Pilot to make an additional charge 

for this service?" 

"Has a Foreign vessel or an American vessel 

under registry, which is proceeding Into the 

Sabine District, 'arrived at the port of 

entry' when she either (I) moors at a public 

anchorage within the Corps of Engineers project for the Sabine-Neches Waterway, or (ii) 

crosses the boundary line of the Corps of 

Engineers project for the Sabine-Neches 

Waterway, for the purpose of ,enterlng a privately maintained channel or berth?" 

-3286- 
Hon. D. Roy Rarrington, page 2 (c-684) 

The Congress of the Unlted States has granted to the 

several States the right to regulate pilotage as set out 

In 46 U.S.C.A., State Regulations as to licenses of pilot, 

etc., Sec. 215.’ This part of the statute says: 

"In no case shall the fees charged for 

pilotage of any vessel exceed the customary or legally established rates in the 

State where the same is performed." 

The Legislature of the State of Texas has regulated 

the pilots, harbors and ports in Articles 8264 through 

8280, Vernon's Civil Statutes. These statutes set forth 

the form and procedure of regulation and provide for appointing a Board for each harbor or port. This Board 

licenses pilots and sets the fees to be charged by the 

pilots In guiding ships to port. Article 8274 sets the 

maximum fee that may be charged by the pilot, and reads, 

In part as follows: 

"The rate of pilotage, which may be fixed 

under Articles 8267 and 8269, on any class 

of vessels shall not, In any part of this 

state . . . exceed six dollars ($6.00) for 

each foot of water which the vessel at the 

time of piloting draws, . ..' 

In the Sabine Pilot's Association v. Lykes Steamship 

, 346 S.W.2d lb6 (Tex.Civ.App.lgbl), the Court 

e language of Article 8274 was clear and unambiguous and that the Board of the Sabine-Neches River 

Waterway could fix rates for bringing the ship to port as 

long as same were not above the statutory limits. 

In BloomfIeld Steamship Company v. Sabine Pilot's Asm;i~tf;~~~$tj2 F.2d 345 (C.A. 5th Cti.1959 cert. denied 

wherein dertain steamship cohpanies sued tg 

recover overdarges by pilots above the maximum fixed by 

Article 8274, the Court said: 

"We hold that the statutory maxlmum applies 

from sea to,any port in,:the state)-and that 

no additional pllotage charge may be legally 

assessed, except for moving a vessel further 

after she has arrived at a port of entry.n 

The Court did not state at wh$t point in Its journey a 

vessel arrived at "a yort'of entry . Our research has revealed that the term 'a port of entry" has been used in 

-3287- 
Hon. D. Roy Harrington, page 3 (c-684) 

reference to the collection of customs and used synonymously 

with the term "collection districts". !Phe on1 

we have found in reference to Ita port of entry 5 cases that 

are Cross v. 

Harrison, 57 U.S. 164 and De Lima v. Bldwell, 182 U.S. 1. 

Th United States Supreme Cour t 

thz Cross case with approval. In the g 

t case cited 

rosa case it was said: 

. . . that collection districts and ports of 

entry are no more than designated localities 

within and at which Congress had extended the 

liberty of commerce In the United States, and 

that so much of Its territory as is not within 

a collection district must be considered as 

havlng been withheld from that liberty. It is 

very well understood to be a part of the law 

of nations that each nation may designate, upon Its own terms, the ports and places within 

its territory for foreign commerce, and that 

any attempt to introduce foreign goods elsewhere within Its jurlsdlctlon Is a violation 

of its sovereignty." 

It is beyond question that the place of dockIn and undocking, by necessity, Is the "collection districts and 

"ports of entry". 

The 

sioners, 

Ch. 448, 

to: 

to 

State of Oregon created a Board of Pilot Commisas an administrative a ency, 

codified as ORS Ch. 77 2 

(Oregon Iaws 1957, 

) and empowered the Board 

"Provide,for efficient and competent pilotage 

service . . . " 

"Fix, at reasonable 

fees . ..' (Emphasis 

and just rates, pilotage 

supplied) 

E: 

age 

Oregon Su reme Court In the case of Powell v. State, 355 

224 (1960 P had before it for decision, whether the pilotfees fixed by the Board of Pilot Commissioners also 

covered the services of the pilots in docking and undockin$ 

the vessels. The pilots contended that the word "pilotage 

as used in the statutes authorizing the Board to fix rates 

therefor must rece,ive a very strict construction and that 

the Board had authority only to fix rates for guiding a vessel up or down a river and nothing else. The Court stated: 

-3288- 
Hon. D. Roy Barrington, page 4 (C-684) 

"If It were possible to find some acceptable 

definition of the word 'pilotage' there would 

be no problem. As Indicated, plaintiff would 

have us define it as limited to the act of 

zUidinQ a vessel from one oort on the Columbia 

giver Eo another port. The shipowners and the 

board argue that the word is all-inclusive and 

Includes every act performed by the pilots and 

those functions Incidental thereto. A search 

for some workable definition has been intereeting but rather futile. An examination of many 

cases, textbooks and other material involving 

pilots and pilotage does not disclose any attempt to define the word pilotage. 

"Nothing would be added by referring to other 

cases and writings on the subject. From a 

reading of the cases, statutes and the reports 

we have mentioned, one thing is clear. The 

word pilotage Is used in an all-inclusive sense. 

Nowhere do we find the term limited in scope 

to such details as docking or undocklng a vessel, 

as the plaintiff would ask us to do. 

'When we examine the entire statute we think 

the intent of the legislature was clear. It 

does not make sense that it would enact a cornprehensive regulatory statute and then leave 

wide gaps of authority the effect of which 

would render the stat&e meaningless. If the 

plaintiff were to prevail the basic power of the 

commission--to fix rates--would be of no avail. 

The pilots could circumvent any limitation on 

the rates fixed by the board by devlces such as 

that proposed in this case. 

"We hold that the full scope of the legislative 

grant of power to the board includes the power 

to regulate every service performed by a pilot 

as a pilot in accordance with his license and 

any acts of the pilot necessary to the ulttiate 

performance of that service .I' (Emphasis supplied) 

As the Powell case is directly in point, and provides an 

acceptable definition of the word "pilotage" we are constrained to agree with the holding therein. It is therefore 

our opinion that pilotage includes docking and undocking and 

we answer your first question In the negative, and in view 

-3289- 
Hon. D. Roy Harrington, page 5 (c-684) 

of our answer to your first question, an answer to your 

second question is not necessary. 

SUMMARY 

The word pllotage as contained in Article 

8274, V.C.S., Is used In an all-inclusive 

sense and includes the docking and undocking of vessels and therefore the Board of 

Pilot Commissioners may not authorize the 

Branch Pilots to make an additional charge 

for such service, 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney Qeneral of Texas 

LT:ml 

BY 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W.V. Geppert, Chairman 

Linward Shivers 

Roger Tyler 

Harold Kennedy 

John Banks 

APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: T. B. Wright 

-3290-