, 1873-03-20


ing within the exempted Territory or VINO had
the control OF snip whose nome port WAS
within tie exempted terf'iors' VINO eio MOI
possess TINS supposed hio"ieeee aiu sAiii' tiie
Legislature has provided the req'ilsi1e sklh at
he spot where ne may Wlsn 10 use II. Aisho''sh
re is not competed 10 tale plot yet II ne
wishes one they are bound to eoey his request
So the perils of the navigation are fully provid-
ed for.
snch being the reason npon which the exemp-
tons are founded, know of no reason why the
Legislature may notrxpand them as far as the
reasons may extend without renderiT g the law
invalid. The extent of the exemption in this
case is unreasonable as is pretty clearly shown
by claimants Proctor; but that is q matter Of
Legislative Judgment and discretion and not for
the courts 1t cannot be declared invalid be-
cause Mr., Judson and myself may think it too
extensive. Much of the force and cogeney Of
Mr.. Julsou's argument is destroyed by the fact
that it proves too much Ii the exemption had
been all the vessels sailing under the Uuited
States f,ag owned on the Pacific coast. much Of
| his reasoning would apply with equal force and
coaencv.
But Sd. 1t is further objected that the Pilot
act of 1858 is in conflict with article . of the
Commercial Treaty of the United States and
Great Britain of July Sd, 1915 and Aug. s, 1927.
! The Ian uase relied upon is as follows mo
/ higher or other duties or charges shall be i'm
/ posed, in any Of ports of the United States, on
British vessels. than those payable, III the same
INV of he mil trtp
have siready shown that the Legislature, in
passing Pilot Law has right to make exemp-
tiors, and that the Emit or extent OF those ex-
emptions was matter OF Legislative judgment
and discretion New II THESE exemptions are
valid and rishtfI,i, then the anoVe qao'ed da-
ties and charges do not appiyto Piiot fees; tor
II they DID, as this, treaty Is general ana su-
preme 1t would overthrow al OF these e'emp-
tlohs. lils caii'ol oe a''iiis'eu' Nei'ncr e"ii
II De SAD tney are nlShef cules OF ehat9es' oe-
cause the ii'is tiAe1 away aii siouiios
Vi ipi i''ii' Du " n''1 ia i-iei'' ~ '''o 80 --i
uu'ies anu ci'rs a9 us'''i In 'ii'
Aie''9 A'S "'o u"'ie' "-ii '.-"A $50 pay
40 "en q" 'S 'e''eA' e-'.i.'' -Ao-. 'No .o--i-
puisofs piosiSi u iios LAWS "S ~ o'nei'
hiehee 'ieie '''e oi"'s Va o"'ies anu e1'-i $50
III 'o'eo til" p"s1oie III poi''' Will az VESSELS
nav ~ p"' "Aeei -,o--- nv "
oI tie fiiot La"s or ho'' lnese are 'ne uu'ies
ana ehaI5es ineaii' LII 'nis 0oIi.her'ii ifea'1
rhey are imposed IN port. Ihe 1air meaning
vi 'hiS 10 tha' 'hes nave 'iieir ies
ana origin thefelh. fiio. ices are NOT imposed
are 'Ai'eu III 'iie iio' A'' a iee 70 iem'i'
.ra j., No se,,sa ..inanosad. i, rort ~, ,,,or.
than LAWYERS fee is imposed in court. Fees
are earned, duties and charges imposed. 1t
would not do to say that dates and charges arc
earned VIII not attempt an en"'nei"'ion "
nane,.l c,,stor uouse cbsrges TONNAGE and
other duties and charges created by the laws of
the United States.
But4. The last exception is that the PLAIN
til cannot recover these piio' ices oy an ACTION
II rem l,"'o 800 ~ -'lso Nv ~, - NJ w..
.non.e: ,o7v tho .iore ;s ,i,hle in AZ, sc-
ton in Dc rsonan, but if the Pilot laws makes
the ship liable, then an action in rem. will lie
The 18th Section OF tins flot Law makes the
lai anu u 'Ao 'es'ei ii''''' i0'
/ - of tho on,nior t,,t ,hss. e~ce,tio,s 9
should all be overuled. and so order,
o. JACOBS, J.
W. H. WHITE for Libellant.
D. 'oDooN' ioi olai'iaii''
M
I'll .s...,e,1 - -, 49,.
srf. NJ. vi. H.. fo,..
'-''- '-- -,
- G., 49,,
e, -, - -, ,S
pniio'e' ~ 49, = ~ 80
'.''n . 'D0n'"i.O
,n"' 70 eAp'D'i ,p sc
NC" .'.n ;,
man :