Morning journal and courier., 1884-02-15
Friday, February 15, 1884.

COMPULSORY PILOTA GE.
 The laws making piiotage compulsory undoubtedly impose heavy burden upon some shipowners, and they think that at least part of this burden is entirely unneces- sary. A bill in their interest which provides for the abolition of compulsory pilotage is now before the house, and it is interesting to see what can be said on this side of the question.
 It is contended that if the compulsory Jea- ture of the pilotage system was once useful 1t Is so no longer. Great improvements have been made in all our harbors and ports, and dangers to navigation have been removed or made known by placing lights, buoys beacons and other safeguards at the entrance of ports, rendering unnecessary at this day the rules which might have been useful many years ago. MT. J. B. Richardson, of Boston, counsel for the New England Ship owners association, said in an argument against the bill that the present compulsory pilot regulations of certain States imposed fees upon vessels of fifteen feet draught bound into the port of Boston amounting to $52 50; that upon the same vessels bound outward the fees are $31.50, making the whole kilotage fees 1884 for one trip. These fees often amounted to a quarter part of the net earnings of vessel for year. These sums, he said, are often paid for services declined, for. as general thing, masters of vessels will not now take pilots, preferring to intrust their vessels to their own officers rather than to pilots appointed by the State. The British Parliament, MT. Richardson stated had to a certain extent within the last few years, relieved those vessels from compulsory pilotage the masters of which, upon examination, had been found capable of performing the duty of good pilots. In ports where the compulsory feature does not exist, for instance, in the ports of Portland and Bangor, Maine, pilots are always to be found when wanted, proving that compulsion is not necessary to keep up the efficiency of the system. The same is also true in the ports of foreign countries where the compulsory feature does not exist. Legislation upon this subject, MT. Richardson argued, properly belongs to Congress as part of it's power to regulate commerce, and uniform system throughout the country is very desirable Calling atten- ton to the laws of Massachusetts in particu- lar, it was shown that vessel may go from Boston to Galveston or New Orleans and return, without the payment of compulsory pilotage fees in Boston; but if the same ves- sel, manned by the same officers and crew, and carrying the same cargo, went to Hayti or Havana and back to Boston, sine would be obliged to pay for her inward and outward pilotage from $50 to $8o. according to the size of the vessel. This, he said, was unjust and unreasonable discrimination against ship owners, who are striving under adverse cir cumstances to carry on little foreign commerce in sailing vessels
 There is much force in this. Of course the principal object of compulsory pilotage is the protection of life and property. Where life and property are not better protected with it than they would be without it 1t is not very useful, except to the pilots who profit by it. It's total abolition might not, however, work we'll, for there would then be constant temptation to save money by not paying pilot fees And there are some ports where even experienced shipmasters ought to have the aid of pilot.