Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-09-17
THE PILOT CASE IN COURT.
The Rights and Duties of the Pilot
Commissioners to be Determined.

Tho Court Asked to Prevent Them from
Forcing a Pilot Into Service Upon Il
Pilot Boat Against the Protest of the
Owners of the Vessel.
Argument was heard before Chan.
cellor Salisbury, yesterday, upon
the motion TO make perpetual the in
Junction restraining the Board Of Pilot
Commissioners from revoking the
licenses of the pilots on board the pilot
boat Thomas Howard, at the Delaware
Breakwater, on account Of their refusal
to allow Pilot John b. Merritt to serve
on their vessel. Pilot Commissioners
Virden, Townsend, Bright and Price
and Pilot Merit were present during
the argument, but the other side APP
peared only by their counsel, Messrs.
Bradford & Vandegrift.
Mr.. Vandegrift opened the argument
and read the bill of the orators, or com
plainants in the case. who are Charles
). Morris, Clinton Morris, Thomas G.
Marshall and William Maule. These
four are licensed pilots, and in connec-
ton with six others own the pilot boat
Thomas Howard. The bill alleges that
the reason for refusing Merritt permits
sion to cruise ON the Howard was thai
he has no share OF interest in the boat,
which is already well manned. The
only object Of the pilot commissioners,
the bill alleges, was to give employment
to Merritt, who has no boat of his own.
The other pilots were unwilling to re-
ceive him, and the board determined by
lot whether to assign him 10 the Thomas
+. Bayard or the Howard, the latter
drawing the undesired prize.
Mr.. Vandegrift, in his argument, said
the question was whether, under the
law, the pilot commissioners have any
right to put Merritt on the Howard,
when the owners Of that vessel object.
He said the court would have to place Il
construction upon that section of the act
creating the Board of Pilot Commits
sioners, which says the board shall
have full power "to grant license to per-
sons to act as pilots i'll the bay and river
Delaware, and to make rules for their
government while employed in
that service" He held that these
rules and regulations could apply to
pilots only when they assume their
duties, and when the board grants
license to pilot it is the pilots bust
ness as to how he gets aboard vessels on
tie bay or river, and not the boards.
To grant the right of the commissioners
to order Merritt on board the Howard
be to would acknowledge their right to
take possession of private property for
the use of the board. II would be eauiva-
lent, if real estate instead of personal
property were involved, TO authority to
exercise the right Of eminent domain.
Levi O. Bird, in reply, held that if
Mr.. Vandegrift's construction of the law
is correct, then there is no further use
for the Board of Pilot Commissioners in
this State. If the commissioners have
the power to issue licenses and pass
upon the qualifications of applicants for
license, and with the issue Of the license
their power ends, leaving them with no
power over the boats, which are part
and parcel of the service, then they are
nonentities and the law creating them
had better not been passed. If the in
junction be made perpetual, it strikes
the very life out of the Pilot Commits
sioners.
The real question, Mr.. Bird commended
is whether the Pilot Commissioners have
the right to make and enforce rule
directing that Pilot Merritt be allowed
to cruise ON the Howard. Tho law
authorizes the commissioners to make
rules for the government of pilots when
employed in the service, and for the
settlement of disputes between them.
Under this provision of the law they
had right to act as they did in the
Merritt case and to enforce their order
by revocation OF license.
Mr.. Bird argued this point at length.
Mr.. Bradford will close for the bill, and
the decision of the court will be re-
served. The case may eventually go to
the court of errors and appeals for
settlement.