Evening journal., 1896-03-06
THOSE PILOT TROUBLES
Carefully and Fully Reviewed
BY Chancellor Spruance.
BxrRAOTs FROM TIE DECISION


PArior-Oar system Might lProve-Train
ofEvents which Led Up to the Uhaucery
Suit.
The following coplous extracts from
the decision rendered By Chancsllor and
litem William O Spruance tells the
history OF one lof the most interesting
fights that over occurred among the
Delaware pilots:
This Is an injunction bill brought by
the complainant, Walter l. VirdeD, to
restrain the defendants, the Board OF
Pilot Commissioners from enforcing
certain rules adopted by the said Boafd
prohibiting pilots holding licenses fro IA
this state, from boarding vessels other
wise than from licensed pilot boats,
except as provided by said rules.
AFTER the hrst day Of Ostober, 1895,
the complainant went TO foreign por5.
to wit, Hallfsx, Nova Scotia, end there
boarded q vessel belonging to lhs Allen
Line OF steamers, from Glssgow aud
Liverpool, calling at Halifax aud bound
for Philadelphia
AFTER said vessel reached nilotage
ground at or near the mouth OF the
Delaware bay, the complainant became
the pilot Of said vessel and brought her
to tue pert Of Philadelphia, he being the
first pilot to offer his services ito said
vessel.
Afterwards the complainant was cited
by said board TO appear before Il to
answer a charge Of having violated said
rules or regulations, aud hevlng ad.
mitted the facts above stated, a motion
sn,ada and ona,ud.J tL.k
plslnant be suspended ss a pilot ia the
bay aud river Delaware, aud that he
forfeit and pay to the Pilot Commission
ers aforesaid the pilotage earned by him
for piloting tbs vessel rs aforesaid
Before said motion was put to vote,
the board, at the request OF The complain
ants solicitor postponed FOR further
consideration thereof until November
1895, In order that the complainant might
have an opportunity to decide what
course he would pursue with respect to
the proposed action of the board.
The bill alleges that thereupon the
complainant fled this bill, bat for the
fling OF which he would have been sus-
pended and fined as aforesaid. and the
answer OF the defendant admits this
allegation to be true.
The complainant has verbal con
tract with the said Allen Line to pilot
the ships OF the said line In and out Of
the Delaware bay and river, pursuant 20
which for some years past. he has been in
the habit Of boarding the ships OF said
line as they touch at Halifax. and pro-
ceeding with them until their arrival off
the mouth OF the Delaware bay, and
thereupon ASSUMING the duties OF pilot,
and bringing the ship to the port Of
Philadelphia.
about the time OF the adoption Of
said rules or regulations by the said
board, similar rules or regulations
we're adopted by the wardens Of, the port
OF Philadelphia
IL appears by the testimony that for
some years prior to the adoption OF
these rules or regulations, that Il had
been the practice OF some OF the pilots
OF the Delaware bay aud river 60 20 10
ports OF the United States, or foreign
ports. TO board aud pilot vessels bound
FOR ports on the Delaware river or bay.
but that sluos the adoption OF said rules
the practice had been abandoned by all
of the Delaware pilots except the com
plsinants, and by all OF the Psnnsyl
vAnia pilots except one or two
The complainant denies the legal valid
lty OF the said rules or regulations aud
the right Of the sal board TO enforce
the same in the mode proposed, or other
wise.
"The bill prays that the said rules or
regulations may DO declared null and
void, and that the said board mBy be
perpstually restrained by the Injunction
OF this court from suspending the com
plainant rs a pilot as aforesaid, on &C
count OF the facts above stated or for
the reasons set forth In said resolution,
and that IL be perpetually restrained as
aforesaid, from imposing upon the COM
plsinant any hnes, penalties or for q
FIXTURES, or anything In the nature
thereof, on account OF the sets done by
him ss herelnbefore stated, or for the
reasons set forth In said resolution, and
that preliminary Injunction may issue
20 restrain the said board in like manner
until the further order OF the court, and
that the complainant may have such
other and further relief as the nature OF
the case may require.
at Is contended on behalf OF the COM
plsinsut, that because the Pilotsge Act
prescribed suspension or forfeiture Of
license for certain ofenses therein spec
lhsd, 70 was not competent for the board
to inhiot similar penalties for the viola
tlon of It's rules.
1t is undoubtedly true. that whore the
Legislature has defined an cffense aud
prescribed a penalty for the same, It Is
not competent FOR the inferior body. such
as this board, TO add additional penalties,
or substitute others for the breach Of such
statutory oifsnse; but it will be observed
that no such question can arise here, "a
the offenss complained OF Is not created
By statute. but by rule or regulation OF
the board adopted, as Is claimed. under
the geaeral powers conferred by the
statute upon the board to make rules OF
this character.
Nor does 1t hppear that there is hsre
any reason for the application Of the
maxim eNpressio unius exclusio est
elterins. AZ the Legislature ia imposing
suspension or forfeiture Of license. was
dealing with statutory ohenses, while We
are considering al oliense Of = wholly
different character.
1T could with equal propriety, be
claimed, 30 the acs prescribed pscuniary
hnes for certain offsnses thereil named.
the board could not prescribe slmllar
penalties for the breach Of It's rules.
The answer Of said board denies The
right Of the complainant TO the ralisi