National Republican., 1883-10-17

the Liverpool aud London and Globe lnsur-
ance company. Argued for tho appellee and |
submitted for the appellant.
No. AZ c. A. Arthur, collector, &C., plain
tiff in error, va. Henry Pastor ct al. Argued.
No. 49, Bernhard Arnson OF al, plaintiffs in
error, VS.. Thomas Murphy, collector. Argued
for plaintiffs in error and submitted for de-
fendant in error.
No. Z. Original. Ex parte. Up the matter Of
tho commonwealth of Pennsylvania, petit
toner. Argued by Mr.. H. g. Ward and Mr..
M p. Henry for the petitioner. Court did
not desire to hear counsel for the respondent
This is an interesting pilotage case from
tho United States district court for the east
ern district of Pennsylvania. The facts as
stated by the attorney general of Pennsyl-
vania are as follows:
The state of Pennsylvania, by the act Of
June, 1881, directs that every vessel which is
not spoken by pilot outside of straight
line drawn between the capes Of the Delaware
shall be exempt from the duty of taking
pilot on her voyage inward to the port of
Philadelphia, and the vessel, as we'll rs her
master, owner, agent, or consignee, shall be
exempt from the duty of paying pilotage, or
half pilotage, or any penalty whatsoever in
case of her neglect or refusal so to do" The
purpose of this act was to secure viEilant
service"
The state of Delaware by the act of April 8,
1881, compels every vessel except such as arc
solely coal laden, passing in or out OF the
Delaware bay by the way Of Cape Henlopen"
to receive pilot.
The vessel in this case did pass in by the
way of Cape Henlopen, and was spoken by u
Delaware pilot after she had entered the capes
By tho law of Pennsylvania, to one of whose
ports she was bound, she was free from pilot
age by that Of Delaware she became liable to
| pay full pilotage.
The Delaware rates are higher for the SER
vice refused than the Pennsylvania rates are
| for the same service rendered.
The district court of tho United States for
| the eastern district of Pennsylvania has en-
tered decree against the vessel for the rates
provided in the Delaware act, and thus has
exercised its admiralty jurisdiction to enforc
the laws of Delaware over the port of Phila-
delphia.
The effect of the decision is to allow state
| lying nearer the sea, whose whole interest in
the pilotage laws is the support of her pilots,
TO override all legislation of Pennsylvania
| (whose interest lies in encouraging COM
merce) exempting vessels from pilotage.
The state of Pennsylvania regarding the
| Delaware legislation as invalid, seeks to pre-
vent the enforcement of this decree by the
writ of prohibition.
Counsel for the respondent on the other
hand maintain that Delaware has the same
right to pass laws regulating pilots and pilot
age that Pennsylvania has and her legisla-
tion upon this subject extends equally with
the legislation of Pennsylvania over the bay
and river Delaware.
At the end of the reading of opinions yester
| day afternoon the chief justice announced that
inasmuch as the litigants in the important
tax case of the county of San Mateo against
the Southern Pacific Railroad company have
stipulated that the further consideration o.
the cause may be postponed until certain
other cases are disposed of, it will be restored
to its original place on the docket to await
the further action of the court.
| Adjourned.