Evening journal., 1896-03-03
THE PARLOR- CAR PILOTS
They Win Their Suit In the
Court of Chancery.
DECISION RENDERED AT NOON

anoe Sat In the Superior Court Room
and Handed Down the Important Man
date OF the Court-Ths winners Are
Not So JubiIant as They Might BE.
Chancellor ad Item William @. spru-
ance sat In the Superior Court room this
afternoon and rendered a decision In the
case Of the pSrlcr-osr pilots VS. the
Delaware Bosrd of Pilot Commission.
ers
The declsiou, while In favor Of the
parlor car pilots In this instance. shows
The Board OF Pilot Q mmissioners a legal
way IN which 20 break up the prac.
tice. IL Is to impose fne
instead OF revoking or suspendIng
pilots license. Virden could not have
been reached In this Gaze anyhow. a5 the
oifense wac committed before the creation
OF the rule.
la other words, all the Pilot Commits
sion has to do now is to so amend the
rules that a heavy fine Is imposed In
stead OF forfeiture or suspension OF
license, and the parlor-car business will
soon be a thlngof the past.
Court convened at 10 40 o'clock Chan
cellor Spruance. the irst Republican who
has sat on the bench In Chancery for a
great many years, looked every inch the
Judge IS be delivered his decision which
involved such big interests which had
been pending .or 90 many months
Lewis @. Vardegrift and Edward O.
Bradford, 20 icitor8 for Walter Virden
and the other pilots commonly designated
as pilots Of the "psrlor-car" variety,
we're the 6rst In the room. Registrar
Ferguson entered almost Immediately
Afterwards.
Chancellor Spruauce entered at 10 "a
gnd tnen there was a delay OF several
minutes awaiting the arrival OF Levi o.
Bird, solicitor for the Board OF Pilot
commissioners Secretary b. Frank
Townsend. OF the board. occupied a seat
at the reporters table
At 12. 40 o'clock Mr.. Bird and Andrew
& Sanborn entered.
Chancellor Sprusnce Immediately took
his seat and Court Crier Smith formally
opened the court.
The chancellor then read his decision,
which covered about thirty pages OF
manuprint. II opened by rsciting the
grievance Of Virden aud his fellows, and
then followed the text OF the acts Great
ing the board and the legislative amend
ments thereto
The rules and regulations governing
the pilots, including the one OF 1895,
aimed at the parlor-car pilots and
designed to prevent them from going 20
Halifax and other intermsdlste points by
railroad aud boarding the ships bound
for the Delaware river ports, we're set
forth at length. together with
the proceedings, leading up TO the fling
Of the bill Ia Chancery by Pilot Virden
IN behalf OF himself aud his fellows who
would rather board incoming craft by
rail than by boat Then followed a
resume OF the testimony for and against
the parlor- car pilots.
de then got down TO his own conclu
slous which we're. In brief, as follows:
mo suitable system OF pilotage can be
maintained without "a sufficient number
Of pilot boats. the chief use OF which Is
TO cruise at sea In oesroh Of vessels need
ing pilots
ANY practice which tends 10
discourage the maintenance OF a suf
fcient feet OF pilot boats. must be
detrimental to the service.
"Without the aid OF any direct testl
mony upon the subject, it is easy TO
reach the conclusion that the practice
complained OF tends t, injure the SER
vice.
1T is more profitable, Is attended with
less risk aud expense, aud furnishes
more steady and certain employment,
and has tendency to draw from this
ordinary cruising service large number
Of capable pilots and breed Jealousy
and dlssstisiaction among those
who, unable to obtain the more
desirable employment should bs
be obliged TO continue in the more peril
ous and less profitable branch OF the
service; and would tend 70 discourage
the maintenance OF a sufficient cruising
feet so essential to the safety of large
number Of vessels requiring pilots
in view OF these considerations the
court has no doubt that the said rules
adopted by the board are reasonable and
within the powers conferred upon tho
board by the Pllotage act, 90 far 40 said
rules relate to the object sought to bo
attained.
IAN important question remaining for
consideration Is, whether the penalty
prescribed bv said rules, and the penali
complainant for his violation OF the
hhuti Gail ouAoAto1
The right conferred by the Lsgisla-
ture upon q corporation. such Es this
board. to make rules, necessarily implies,
without and express grant, the right
TO prescribe and enforce penalties for
their violation; but the character OF the
penalties which. without the express
authority Of the Legislature, may OF may
not be so prescribed aud enforced, Is well
defned In numerous cases aud text
books.
Punishment for violation OF rules
such as those under consideration can
not be by forfeiture OF property, II such
forfeiture has not been In express terms
authorized by the Legislature.
"Ths fact that the board has legisla-
tive power TO establish rules for the
government Of pilots and prescribe pro.
per penalties for the violation Of the
same, and has slso judicial power TO try
aud determine charges OF violations
thereof, does not dispense with the
necessity for the existence Of the rule
and the penalty before the commission Of
the offence.
As no express authority to revoke,
| I.roum forfatf or cnanand nlIof Il