Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-06-17
COMPULSORY PILOTAGE.
A Very Interesting and Important
Decision.

We present herewith a copy in full OF tae
decision rendered yesterday in the Superior
Court in the case OF J. J. Thompson VS..
spraigue, soulle & Co., attachment for
pilot services. 1t is q case Of peculiar
importance not alone to this but other ports
in Georgia, aud will be read with special
interest:
SUPERIOR Court, CHATHAM Co.,
June Term, 1882.
]. J. Thompson VS.. Spraigue, Soulle & Co. At
tachment for pilot services In Justice Court
and appeal from the judgment of the Justice
of Peace.
This action was begun on sth September,
1881. by attachment In Magistrates Court for
S93 Is alleged to De due J. ]. Thompson as
licensed pilot Of the port OF Savannah, under
the laws of the State and Of Congress- and for
the amount OF inward pilctage claimed upon
the coastwise steamer Saxon, plying between
her home -Philadelphia-and Savannah.
The attachment was sued cut against the de-
PENDANTS as the owners Of the said steamer and
as non-residents Of this State. Judgment was
given by the Justice for plaintiff, Thompson,
for the amount claimed. Upon the hearing OF
the appeal the case is submitted by consent to
be decided by the court, without jury, and
upon an agreed statement Of facts.
The facts agreed upon are substantially:
That the steamer Saxon is a licensed coastwise
vessel, engaged in trading between Phlladel-
ants, who are residents of Pennsylvania. That
in August, 1881, she was commanded by one 5
w. Snow, who was duly licensed as master and
pilot under Title SO of the Revised Statutes OF
the United States the said certificate as pilot
and master being issued in November,
/ $780, by the Board OF Inspectors at Philadelphia
for the atlantic coast, and did not include
go ilOmine, Tybee bar and the Savannah river.
That on 9th Of August 1881, as said steamer
was proceeding from Philadelphia to SavaR
NAH she was spoken by the plaintiff off Cape
Roman, on the South Carolina coast, who then
rendered his services to the said master of said
steamer Saxon as a pilot for Tybee bar and the
Savannah river, and that at the time such ser
vices were rendered there was no pilot on
board the said steamer for the said Tyoee bar
and Savannah river. and that plaintiff was the
first pilot who spoke said vessel on her said
trip to Savannah, and that plaintiff was duly
licensed both by the Pilot Commissioners OF
this State and the United States Inspectors at
the port of Savannah, as a pilot for the ''Sa-
vannah river" and ''Tybee bar" to conduct
steam vessels over said bar and up and down
said river. That plaintiff being appraised that
said vessel had sailed from Philadelphia for
Savannah, went out TO meet her. That the de-
PENDANTS had procured the services of one Wal
ter w. Smith, who was also duly licensed both
by the State authorities and by the United
States Inspectors to conduct steam vessels
over T, bee bar and up and down the Savan-
nah river; and that said defendants had nc
titled the said master of said steamer to stop
at Martins Industry Light Ship (Which is
between said Cape Roman and Tybee barr,
and there to take said pilot W. W. Smith
on board to pilot said steamer Saxon
over Tybee bar and up the Savan-
nah river; and that said Smith was so taken on
board on the 10th of August, 1881, aud did pilot
the said vessel over the said bar and up the
said river; and that the said Smith was in the
pay of said defendants from the time the said
vessel left Philadelphia and was regularly en-
ployed by said defendants In August last, and
has so continued to be employed as the pilot of
O. All IN Savannah N re- OH
Ter trips. That Smith was in Savannah when
the vessel left Philadelphia. and met her at
Martins In ustry Light Ship by agreement the
day after she was spoken by plaintiff at sea-
That according to rates of pilotage established
by the Pilot Commissioners OF Savannah, under
the State laws, the proper charge for plotting
said steamer inward over the bar and up to
Savannah was $93 l7-l00, the said vessel draw
ing II feet and inches. That Philadelphia was
the home port of said steamer, and that the
Captains and masters Of the steamers of the
Ocean Steamship Company of Savannah, whose
home port is Savannah, have each q licenSe
from the State and United States authorities
at Savannah to pilot their vessels over the bar
at Tybse and up and down the Savannah river
to this city.
The counsel for plaintiff contended that IN
der these facts he was entitled TO a judg-
ment, by reason OF the law set forth in
the Code of Georgia, beginning with section
1904 That under section 1911 plaintiff had
offered his services to the defendants vessel,
and that under section 1912 be was authorized
TO sue for and collect from the defendants ''the
full rates OF pilotage established by law for
such vessel, which rates are admitted would
be the sum sued for under the provisions of the
rules made by the Commissioners of Pilotsge
appointed by the authorities of the city of Sa-
vAnnah for the bar of Tgbee and Savannah
river"
No point was made at the argument by coun-
sci for defendants against the right of plaintiff
to sustain the suit, except because under sec.
tion 4i44 of the Revised Statutes of the United
fotn f-cf1 Tka Al.
Saxon" having been licensed by the authori-
ties at Philadelphia as pilot for the atlantic
coast had the authority to bring the vessel
over Ty bee bar and up the Savannah river him
self; and secondly That the defendants had
the full legal right to employ Walter w Smith
TO act as pilot for their vessel as set forth ia
the agreed statement OF facts No reference
was made to the disSimilaritV in the provisions
of sections 1919 and 1917 of the Code OF Geor-
gia. In section 1912 it is set forth that 1.-THE mas
ter or commander of a ship or vessel
who refuses to receive pilot or board, shall
be liable to pay the first pilot who
may have. offered his services outside
rates of pilotage established by law
for said vessel:"' And in section 1917 is set
forth that "a pilot bringing vessel into port
shall be entitled TO his fees" which may he
demanded and recovered in any court having
jurisdiction, from the owner, master or consig-
nee Of the vessel" For refusal to take the
drst pilot offering his services such pilot may
recover what his fees lCOvId have amounte1 to
from the commander or master" of the yes
sell; and then only. it would seem, when such
master refuses altogether ITO receive pilot on
board " BY strict construction of this sec
ton, it appears that the master of a vessel is
not bound to take the first pilot who offers but
is bound to pay such first pilot il he shall not
take any pilot at ALL Constituting these words
of section 1913 in connection with section 1911,
which says, Every pilot boat cruising or stand
ing out to sea must offer the services of pilot
to the vessel nearest the bar, " it would appear
4 IN Off q
pre- MUM to pilots to go so far out that they
run the risk OF missing an incoming vessel and
of adding to their own chances OF being lost.
1t could scarcely have been the design of the
Legislature to preclude the masters of yes
sells from exercising their discretion and
Judgment in selecting a pilot, provid-
ed they took some licensed pilot to
steer the vessel into port IL no Eilo6 was
chosen then tho pilot WHO first offered his SER
vices in accordaHce with law, has the right to
recover what those services would have come
to if they had been accepted. Suppose pilot
should offer his services to one of a number of
ships, which was not the one nearest the bar
and because il was more profitable to bring in
that ship rather than another nearer the bar,
how then could such pilot derive any rights as
against the master of such ship even if no
pilot should be taken II this view Of the law
is correct the case is at once disposed of in
favor of the defendants. By section 1917 of
the Code the right to recover against the own
of vessel or to subj set the vessel itself is
made complete only when the pilot has aotu-
ally performed the Service by bringing the yes
sci into port.
But supposing that the first pilot Offering
has claim against the owners and the vessel,
il his services shall be refused by the maste.
even though the vessel afterwards takea soma
other licensed pilot, then lot it Do seen II the
plaintiff can recover in view of the special and
peculiar wording of section 1912 of the Code,
without Just yet considering the bearing that
section 44t4 OF the Revised Statutes has
upon this case. BY this section OF the Code of
ion ffo
steam and sail, are made amenable to the pilot
laws of the state of Georgia, Except coasters
in this State, and between the ports Of this
State and those Of South Carolina and he
tween the ports OF this State and those of Flori.
da." Without reference to the ownership of
the vessels, those engaged In the coasting
trade, exclusively within the waters of this
State, and those cossting between this State
and either South Carolina or Florida, arc en-,
tirely exempted from the operation of the
pilot laws as enacted by the State of Georgia
A vessel whose home port is Charleston or
Jacksonville can trade between either OF those
ports and the ports in this State without hav-
ing to take and pay for pilot. But vessel
las In this case) whose home port is Philadel-
phia, II is contended by plaintiff, cannot enter
any port in Georgia without having to take
and pay for pilot regularly licensed for such
Georgia port by the State authority.
The home port of a vessel is presumed to be
the place OF the residence OF its owners and in
this case it atiirmativeiy appears that the de.
PENDANTS reside in Pennsy lvania.
Par. l. Of Sec. 2 and Art. Of the Constitu-
ton OF the United States recites that "Fhe citi-
gems of each State shall be entitled to all privi
leges and immunities Of citig ms in the several
states" By Sec. 1879 of the Code of Georgia
vessel, owned In Georgia and used ia the coast
ing trade of this State, is relieved from the
penalties attaching to the refusal to take a
pilot by the masters of vessels owned in Penn
sYIvania or New York and engaged in coasting
between this State and any other State. except
south Carolina and Florida. So, if q vessel be
owned ia South Carolina OF Florida and be en-
oaOad in cOQQtiup haf wQan thic Ctofa or1 tbosa