The New York herald., 1869-05-13
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Liable ier kis Tort--The N;nbiect Finally DE.
icr,Dined.
7ke Steamship Chf1sd her tackle, de-; ute British
aMa Worth american Royal Mail Sean, Packet COM
pdnp, Claimants, ps. Louis Walsh ana Be'Jdmi,,
Darceq.--Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
Southern district Of New York. Mr.. Justice Swayne
delivered the opinion OF the court.
This s a case arising out Of collision between the
steamship China n British vessel then leaving the
port OF New York for Liverpool and the brig Ken
tncky, then o v0yage from Cardenas to New
York. The facts are lew and undisputed. The col
hsion occurred on the 18th OF July, 1853, short dis
tance outside OF Sandy Hook. The brig was sunk.
The steamship was wholly in lault Il was not al
legged, IN the argument here for the appellants,
that there was either fault error
on the part Of the brig. The case turns upon the
efect to be given TO the statute of New York OF the
81 Of April 1857. At the time OF the collision the
steamship was within the pilot waters OF the port
OF New York, and was in charge ei pilot licensed
under this act taken by the master pursuant 10
It's provisions. The pilots orders were obeyed and
the catastrophe entirely the result OF his gross
md culpabe msmanagemeat. No question was
made in the argument upon the subject; the ev-
dence Is too clear to admit Of any, These are all the
facts material to be considered. The questions WIN
which we have to deal are questions Of law. NO
others arse IN the case. 1t insisted by the appel
ns that the statute referred to compelled the mas
ter OF the steamship 10 take the pilot and that they
are, therefore not liable for the results OF his mis-
conduct. British adjudications are relied upon IN
support OF both these propositions. In order TO ap
precae authorities the British pilot acts must
he understood. Tie opinion here examines the
British pilot acts and the decision IN ,ne ,nan case
and determines that the pilot must be taken. II Is
then sad:-other authorities TO the same eject
might be referred to- but IL is deemed unnecessary
The have cited Is sufllcient. suppose the
New York statute, IN the event OF refusal to take
n pilot ON board instead OF full plotage. had given
ihe vessel or cargo to the pilot. Whether the
amount to be pad were large or small. II would
operate in the same way ana involve the same prin
ciple The difference would be. not IN the 1act but
Ia the degree of compusion. II 1t be said the mas
ter had the option 10 pay the pilotdge and proceed
mad the same option il the consequence had been
Dne and Imprisonment or the visiting upon him OF
any other penal correction In each ease there
would be cOmpUlslon, measured in its force by the
means preScri bed TO make it elective. duty Is
enjoined and an obligation is imposed. The alter
natives presented are to receive the pilot. or TO re-
fuse and take the consequences. In this connection
II proper to consider the particular provisions Of
the New York statute II enacts that the master
..shail take licensed pilot:'' that in
OF refusal pilotage shail be paid. and
that IL shall be paid 70 the first pilot Offering his
vices Any person not holding license under this
act the law OF New Jersey, who shall pilot Of
fer to pilot any vessel TO from the port Of New
YORK, by way Of sandy Hook. except such
exempt by virtue OF this act; an! master on board
Of steamtug who shall tow such vessel without a
not exceeding 500, or imprisonment not exceeding
sixty days; and AL persons employing person not
licensed under this act, or the laws OF New jersey
subjected TO penalty Of SlOO.sIt was conteued
by counsel for appellee that II the master had chosen
to proceed without pilot he would have been liable
only to the payment of potage, ana that none OF the
other penal PROVISIONS Of The statute, according 10
1ts irae meaning, apply In such case We have not
FOUND II necessary TO examine this subj ect. Giving
% the statute either construction, it To
car, in the light of both and authority that
the plot was taken by the steamship upon cOmpul-
sion.
This brings US to the examination OF, the second
proposiEion-does the fact that the law compelled
The master 10 take The pilot eXODeIae the vessel from
babityY Tie immunity Of the wrongdoing vessei
when the pilot is in charge and alone In fault is
well settled IN English Jurisprudence. both in the
admiralty courts and the courts of common law.
The rule must necessarily be the same in both. In
such the liability Of the ship and OF the owner
are convertible terms. The ship is not liable II the
owners IRE not, and no responsibility attach 20
the owners 4 the ship Is not liable to be proceeded
leading English cases will be adveYted 10 accord
ing TO The order OF time in which they were deter
Iained.
The opinion here considers the following English
cases:-Neptune "a 52 Geo. H.: Attorney General
W. Case, Price, 303 Caruthers, VS.. Litlerbotham
n. y. s., sS; Girolsun, Hogg, lG9 The Protector
Rob-, IS; The Maria. Rob., 80; Baron Hobby
Moss' 2't & The Gladiator % hEgg $40 , and @ tne EoI
ODerate the vessel where the fault the
pilots. 1t then proceeds:-Tnese Judgments
have stood unquestiOned down TO the
present time. There have been numerous adju-
dicatfons settling the construction Of the statutory
where the pilot is in fault. The following PROPOSE
tions may be deduced from then:-The statute Civ
Ing the immunity where d licensed pilot II employed
abridges the natural right Of the injured party TO
compensation and Is, therefore. 20 be strictly
strued. The exemption applies only where the pilot
III actually In charge OF the vessel and solely in
fault n there be anything which occurred without
the fault Of the pilot in producing the accident the
exemption does not apply, and the vessel, masters
and owners liable The coliiding vessel is in all
cases prfrG Gacie responsible The burden OF proof
rests upon the party claiming benefit OF the ex-
was IN fan and that there was no fault Oh The part
of tne oflcers or crew (which might nave BEEN m
any degree conducive TO the damage (Ibe General
Deievan Swabey, 10: The Dana, VIM. Rob- lbs
The Protector, ibid, so; rne Christina n Moore,
November 2, 1862, p. 81; Tne Jopa, Law Rep. / =.
e., 49, The last IN the series of these authorities
To- be considered n the Holley. Law Rep 1855,
a., =, Ad anu Fec, p. :. The owners OF "a foreign
ship sued the owners Of IN English ship IN the
British Court Of Ad,niriliy claiming damage for a
collision in The Belgian waters. The defendants
pleaded that by the Belgian law pilotage was com.
pulsory. the plaintiffs replied that by the same
law the wrong-doing vessel was Liable for the
janlages. The case turned upon the sufilcency of
the latter proposition ns AN answer to The former.
Sir Robert phlmore following the OF snIIIn
VS.. Condry, decided by this court q How, 2s) aud
other authorities TO which he referred, neld that The
rights oi the parties were governed by the law uf
The place OF the tort. "A portion of the opinion of
the Court IN that Is mere quoted, aud II Is con
tnned.l This survey Of the tngilsh eases warrants
several 0bscrvatiOns. Lord stowei overlooking thc
siatnte, refused 10 recognize the principle OF eX-
emption. He neld the true rule of law 70 be that
Daulb cfeIteu u3blll, Notwithstanding tldL the
pilot was taken on compus'on. STR. John Nichol
made persistent erort to get rid OF the stalute
by giving the jurisdiction ciause . construction
(which annued the operation of the exemption
In the Admiralty Court. nr. Lu-hngton AMI
sfbe PIivy Council nave held that tue exenp
tOn clause ~ 10 tie strictly construed, ant
given II construction ~ narrow rs nearly
~ limit Its operation ard impair It's EN-
cscy: while SIR kobert Pnliimore pronounced 10
working ia the Admiralty Court fruitful Of inju-
tcc" aud than lntmatcs that n ~ contrary I,
the Fundamental principles OF natural right. Tines,
iHtn u- Ia .isfn sf
the principle Ia our Jurisprudence. The question ,:
nu. new one IN this country II arose early ~
tbe year 1900 IN Busst yvs. Donaldson q Dallas a0ol
In that case the Court sad:-The legislative regula
Gops arc not intended 10 alter ObteTate the prn
ciples of law by which the owner of ayessel was
previously responsible for the conduct OF the pilot
hui W secure IA favor n every pefsCnsttaDgers as
wei 8s Notwithstanding 10 our port class of X.
per,ence, skilful and honest mariners TO navigate
tbeir vessels sarcy p the bay and The Delaware
the mcre right Oi cjloce is indeed one bat not the
only reason, why the aw IN general makes the master
Responsible for the acts OF his servant; aud In many