Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-02-01
The PiIntnce Decision.

The decision OF the supreme court Oh
Georgia, rendered upon the appeal OF
Thompson versus Spraigue, Soulle y Co.,
which arose out Of the decision of Judge
Henry B. Tompkins, late of the Eastern
Circuit. upon a claim for pilotage fees hl''oe
bv Thomson. whose services were re-
fused by the steamship Saxon on her way
to this port. settles veXed question and
is of importance to variety of commercial
interests.
The Superior Court for Chatham county
disalIowed the claim of Thompson, the
plaintiff, on the ground that the pilOtage
laws Of Georgia Disseminated against
citizens of other States, and were there
fore unconstitutional. Hence the appeal,
the decision upon which reverses the judg-
ment of the court below. Summed up the
opinion Of Chief Justice Jackson presents
the following points:
First. The officer in charge of any YES
sci bearing towards any port or harbor oil
this State, except coasters in this state
plying between the ports Of this State and
those of Florida and South Carolina, is
bound to receive the pilot first Offering his
services outside the bar. On refusal he
becomes liable on arriving in port to the
pilot so Offering his services for the full
pilOtage fees attaching to such vessels.
Pilots are necessary agents of commerce,
and it is the pilots duty to be ready to
lend aid to vessels making for port.
Second. \ prior contract with another
pilot will not operate as against the pilot
first offering his services.
Third. The action of the master or COM
mander Of ship, acting as such, in re-
fusing the services of a pilot first offered,
renders the owners liable for the fees for
such services, especially if the refusal is
based on a prior contract. The liability
to the first pilot Offering is under an inn
piled contract. The recovery is on such
implied contract, and not as penalty.
Fourth. The section of the Code requir-
| ing the acceptance of the services of the
| pilot first offering is not in conflict with
! the provisions of the Federal Constitution,
/ guaranteeing TO the citizens of each State
/ the privileges and immunities of citizens
/ of the several States. There is nothing in
the law of Georgia to prevent citizens of
any State profiting by the exemptions pro-
/ vided for by the law as to vessels sailing
between Georgia and Florida or South
! Carolina ports.
! Continuing the court further shows the
/ recOncilability of the Georgia statute with
! the sections of the U. :. Revised Statutes
bearing upon the subject, the gist
| Of the courts language being that
/ sCOnstruing sections 1927 and 1896 of
/ the Revised Statutes Of the United States
/ together, and comparing section 1912 of
/ the Code of Georgia with them. it appears
that the exception made in the Georgia
law i'm favor of coasters between the ports
/ of Georgia and those of South Carolina
and Florida is contrary to section 4237,
and annulled by it, except as to those
l ports situated upon waters which are the
| boundary between Georgia and those
! States. As to these. the master of a YES
sci may employ any pilot licensed or
I authorized bv the laws of either State.~
THAT an exception in section 1912 of
| the Code in favor of certain vessels is re-
pugnant to the Statute of the United
| States, annuls such exception. but does
not invalidate the remainder of the sec
ton. the Objectionable part being separa-
bic from the balance"
Constituting sections 4444 and 4401 of
Z the Revised Statutes of the United States
together. they mean that when a steam
vessel not sailing under register THAT is,
! not trading with foreign ports is on her
| cOastwise voyage, she must have on board
pilot licensed by the United States au-
/ thOrities. But license issued by the in
| spectOrs at Philadelphia to the master of
a vessel as pilot for the Atlantic coast
I VIII not be construed To include the right
to cross the Tybee bar, and pass up the Sa-
yannah river to the port of Savannah. Nor
/ does the exception of cOaStWise steam
| vessels from the operation of State laws
contained in section 4444 of the Revised
| Statutes, include cOastwise steamers
/ whose masters or captains have no license
10 pilot within the bar and up the rivers
of the State, from the United States
authorities. If they have such license
from the United States authorities no
State law shall require an additional
! license or enforce the collection of the
fees Of pilot license by the State. But
| if there be no pilot on board licensed by
/ the United States authorities to pilot the
steamer within the rand Up the river,
/ the State law remains of force"
In conclusion, the court holds that it is
''nO excuse for refusing a pilot that the
vessel was on the Atlantic coast, off the
coast OF South Carolina, when his services
were offered. The Savannah river is the
boundary between Georgia and South
\ Carolina. and so soon as the pilot crosses
/ the Tybee bar and steers north, he is tech
nically off the coast of South Carolina.
To rule that this places him beyond the
( operation of the law would be to cOnfine
him within the bar and curtail his use
/ f1lness."
| The amounts involved in the suit was
! but trifling. but the plaintiffs action has
had the desirable and beneficial effect of
/ setting the question at issue at rest.