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

the Constitutionality of the State Pilot
age Laws.
Thompson vs. epraigue. Soulle 20. Appsal
from Chatham Pilots Contracts. LAVE
Public policy. Constitutional law
JACKSON, CD.
This suit was instituted by the plaintln IN
error against the defendants for $93 10, aHegea
10 he due plaintiff as a pilot for the port OF
Savannah, based on the REFUSAL OF tue e ,t
ants, owners Of the steamship saxon, tnLousl
the master of said steamer as their aSe. NJ. 10 ~
receive said pilot and permit MN 70 PIiot sae
ship over Tybee bar and up the river 70 Sa
vannah. BY agreement of counsel tne case
was submitted to the court below Wlth9u . .ne
Intervention Of a jury, on an agIeeu stsl.e
ment of facts. Whereupon judgment was as rem
dered for the defendants, and the plalntln. eA-
cepted. The facts agreed upon are suDs'ah-
That the steamship Saxon is licensed
cOastwise steamship vessel, engageu IN tILe
trade between Philadelphia ana Sa1 Tit W.
and belongs to Sprague, Soulle 20. .ac, "a
the 9Th day of August, 1881, she was enSaeeu
in voyage from Philadelphia, Pa, TO SaVan-
nah, Ca. and that S. w. Snow was her mas a
ter: that said master was duly llcenseu unuei
title 50 of the Revised Statutes OF the Onlteu
States, as a master of steam ySssel anu as
pilot also, but that his certlncate ulu no. ~ ~
clude Tybee bar and Savannah river Du. .I.sl NAY
his certificate was for the Atlantc coast, anu
that his certificate as master ana pllOt was Is
sued last November; that sald steah1SIlP
Saxon was spoken by SAID pialntlh oH S Ie5P'
Roman on the 9th day OF August, 1901;
and his services were rendered 10 saIu ~ u
said Steamship saxon as pilot for savannah
river and TyDee bar. ana that az Ino tliiS ;I9
said services were offered there was no pup
for Tybee bar or savannah r! N,a ~ ~ Ct
steamship. and that said plalntln Was INC n ~
pilot who spoke said vessel on her TRIP 70 pa
vannah, and that said pilot was dny i dli rs
siOned,by the Commissioners OF TllotasG Iol
the Savannah river and Tybee bar, anu was
also duly commissioned by the United states
inspectors to conduct steam vessels over T. pee
bar and up the Savannah river anu "I.til nt
that limit; that Thompson Weht o" donortnre
the Saxon. being advised OF hef uepart!u[e
from PhiladeIphia. and his services
were refused; that the defendant na9 Ply ;.4
cured the services OF water ". 9ihI.li,
q DiIot who was duly licensed for savannah
riYor', and ssTybee bar" by the Commissioners
of Pilotage, and who was also uuly nSchseu
by the United States to conduct Nessels VNei
Tybee bar and up savannah IlseL, "U So ,lS,,
notified the Captain of said steamship saxon
to stop at Martins Industry nghtshp, anu
take said Walter W. Smith on Doar9 W PiIIot
said steamship over Tybee bar and up tn ne
Savannah river; that said Walter W Smlth
was employed as the regular pilot OF the
steamship Saxon, and was under pay from rom
the time the said vessel left Fhllauelphla;
that said pilot was TAKEN ON ngDsf Off the
Martins Industry lghtship, ana ne plIOte9
the said vessel to the city OF Savahnah, anu
has continued in the employ OF salu Ve9 7t
from that time to the present time as pilot.
That Cane Roman is on the South Carollna
coast. north Of Charleston, and that Martln :
Industry lightship Is north OF IyDee par, on
the coast Of South Carolina: ina ar[1, , %
smith was in Savannah when the saxon Ielt
PHILADELPHIA, and was not plotting the saxon
when she was spoken by the plalhtiTI; put IiGi
her afterwards and was taken; Ihat sal9
steamship Saxon drew seventeen ieet ol
water. and that according to the rates Ipr pl-
lotare for Tybee bar and Sayannah river;
1893 10 was proper charges Tor plloting d vessel
of such draft up to savannah Guy. ,
10
small consequence; but the principles ruled
bv the Superior Court are OF vast lhPort;i1lce
to the port and pilots OF savannah, as wen us
to the commerce of the state ana country !:
and the Judgment of this court upon all OF
those principles so ruled has been earnestly
invoked bv the counsel. and Is demanded by
those public considerations.
/ If the Code of Georgia is unaffected by
the Constitution and laws of the United
States is the plaintiff entitled TO recover? Inc
answer depends on the construction OF sec
tions 1912 and 1917 of the Code.
Section 1872 is as follows: Amy person,
master. or commander of ship or vessel bear
ing towards any of the ports or harDors OF TINS
State except coasters in this state ana pc
tween the ports of this state and those or
south Crolina and between The ports OF thls
State and those of Florida, and VINO refuses 10
receive pilot on board, shall De llttDle On His
arrival in such port in this State to pay the
first pilot who may have offered ms services
outsidC fhe bar and exhibited his license, II
demanded by the master, the fun rates OF pl-
section 1917 declares that "a pilot bringing a
vessel into port shall be entitled to his fees be
fore her departure from port, 70 DC pau IN
advance or sec9flLE Sxe t9E te 10 carry
the vessel out and all fees for pilotage may DC
demanded and recovered IN any court having
Jurisdiction from the owner, master OF con
signee of the vessel and II any llcenseu plioU
sbaiI ask or demand more fees for his service
than are specified in the rates OF photaSe, on
due preOf thereof before the Commissioners,
he shall forfeit double the amount OF such YES
The nuesfion is, whether these Sc ctiOns, con-
stEued together and in the light OF other sec
lions of the Code in the same article, give lhe
pilot first Offering his services the right TO re-
cover fees when another pilot VINO afterwards
offered his services was received ana con-
Quoted the vessel into port under contract
previously made with the vessel DeIore she
left Philadelphia to meet her at point nearer
n there had been no such contract could he
recover? And does the contract, II made alter
his right?
First i'm the absence of another's being en-
cared. when the plaintiff offered his services
and he was refused, could he recover? Such
aDDeArs to us to be the meaning OF section
I5l2 4 pilot va refused and thereupon the
first who rendered his services was entitled TO
fees. The language of the statute IS, VINO
refuses to receive pilot on poaru; lIen I.e
first ''who may have offered his services out
side the barr can recover. Certainly the
master of the ship refused to receive plloI
in this case; certainly the plaintlh nrst 0nereu
his services: therefore it would seem that by
the very letter of the section the plalntln
could recover though he did nothing but ten
der services. That this construction OF the
section would be eleaF had not the master OF
the vessel received another pilot ana been
piloted over the bar and to savannah by MN
must be admitted by all candid MINDS; but III
is conceded that if the words stood Atone UNI IN.
supported by other aids to reconstruction, where
another pilot was received ana carried the
vessel into port, the construction would be
doubtful =
light upon these words. The preceding sec
ton 1911 'epacts that ''evefy pilot boat cruls-
ing or standing ont to sea, H.uEt oner the ser
vices of pilot to the vessel nearest the par.
The pilot cannot elect among vessels whlch
he will offer to serve; but by the same section
''for each and every neglect or REFUSAL elther
to approach the nearest vessel, or 10 ana any
vessel in sight showing signals of distress" he
must nav a penalty of fifty dollars, ana may
lose his license at the option of the Commas
sioners If the pilot may not under such
pains and pet$lgles sefec, when ktSseI ne
shall serve it? Ought not the duties and la
bilities to be reciprocal, ana ~ the pollcy OF
our law otherwise? Did the State mean to
give such advantages to the foreign VesseI over
her own hardy seamen? We hardly think so.
Again. section 1917, above set out, gives to
the pilot bringing in vessel the right 10 I'M
mediate payment OF ices or security tnereol
before her departure, and on failure he may
refuse 10 carry her ont and yet recover al
fees therefor showing that be stands on q diff
ferent footing from one who was rejected on
the bar The one may recover only for the
refusal to receive him; the other for services
actually received in bringing In tho ship ana
the tender of services to take her OUT Inc
two sections provide for totally distinct mat
ters 40 that we do not see how the case pro-
vided for in 1872 is dependent in any wise on
1877. BY section 1913, he who brings the yes
sel in has the exclusive right to take her out;
but he who was rejected as her pilot coming
AZ take
Moreover, the policy of the law requires the
construction we give the words-that policy
is to engender among the pilots a laudable
rivalry to venture beyond the bar or Its lmme-
diate proximity, and thus to be ever ready to
lend aid to vessels making for the port. Laws
to the same eject as ours, perhaps some OF
them clearer in Language Rnp ~ splriE allke,
have been given The same construction IN
other states. Indeed, they are on the statute
books of all the maritime States of the Union,
and so far as we are informed nave FecelVeu
the same construction, and upon the same
broad view of commercial necessity for hardy,
energetic and fearless pilots. Reward Tor al
venture of all sorts creates ITS spirit III Is the
soul Of enterprise, ana maKes men NJ i9r
emergency in all avOcations OF life, especially
those which demand exposure to dangers and
death. See Metcalf, Mass, 4l8'l7, Wall,
SO, cited by plaintiff in error.
In the latter case the supreme Court OF the
United States say, Mr.. Justice Field deliver
ing the opinion, 1.-THE claim to half pilot fees,
it is true, was given by the statute, but only
in consideration OF SERVICES bonuClCAs 1HC
object OF the regulations establishedb statute
was to create body of hardy and skillful sea-
10 nilot vessels Seeking to enter or depart from
the port, and thus give security to life and
property. This object would be in great de-
gree defeated if the selection Of a pilot were
or the exeFtions OF a pilot to reach the vessel
in order to tender his services were without
remuneration. The experience of all COM
mercial States has shown tha necessity, IN Or
der to create and maintain an efficient class