Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-09
TIL, METRIC SYSTEM.
Rouse Bill Proposing lis Adoption Re-
tFred BACK 10 Committee
SENATOR TuRpIE SARCASTIC.
Referring 90 Mr.. Lodge, lie Says
.Pygmies Arc Pygmies SIN,
Though rcrcheG on AIps"--Cuban
bsurrection-Compu Pfiotage.

II surrection--Comp ffiotage.
WASHINGTON. D. c., April g.
The House spent two hours to-day IN
rol-cails. on questions relating to inc
bin 20 make the motrIc-system OF weights
aud measures the legal system oil
the United states. after January l.
1901: and. finally 81 was recommitted 10
the Committee on Coinage. Weights. ana
Measures The first vote was on inc
motion to order the bin TO a third reau-
ing. That was agreed to--yeas. il9; nays
III not voting. lis. A motion was mace
to reconsider and to lay that motion on
the table. the ordinary parliamentary
device to cllnch action upon measure
hut the House refused-132 TO n1-to lay
the motion TO reconsider on the table
The motion TO reconsider was then agreed
to-l42 to 99--whereupon, the bill was
sent back to the committee.
The bin TO repeal the compulsory plot
age system. still In force in nine
Southern States, so far as II affects
SAlllIlK-NCSStlS All lHt NOdSNNtSN NAN'N'
was then taken up. and its consideration
begun under an agreement 10 take vote
at 2 o'clock tomorrow. The bill was ad-
yocated by Messrs. Payne Republican,,
OF New York: and Simpkins Repubii-
cam, OF Massachusetts,; and opposed by
Messrs Minor Republican,, Of Miscon-
sin. and Cummings DEMOCRACY, of New
York.
The conference report on the agricul-
tural appropriation bill was presented.
and agreed TO. and at $50. the House al
3ourned.
COMPULSORY PILOTAGE.
when the bill to abolish compulsory
pilotage was taken up. Mr.. Payne eX-
blamed the intent and scope Of the bill.
The original law relating TO pilots, he
said. had been passed in 1883. There had
been no change I'm this law, so far as
coastwise sailing vessels were concerned.
though several States had done away with
this unjust discrimination against sailing
vessels. He read from table giving the
estimated pilotage receipts from tonnage
OF vessels engaged in the foreign trade
at eighteen ports IN the nine States when
would be affected by the bill showing
that in the year ended June 80, 1885, they
were s555.S99. He paid a tribute TO the
courage and endurance of the pilots, but
said IL was not superior to that or the
men who go down 10 the sea in SHIPS
who could not run into port always Wheh
the wind and storm bore down 100 hard
and who received comparatively a TRUE
for their services before the mast. 1t had
been asserted that II this bill were passed
many of the pilots would be compelled "a
retire. That might be true but If II were
ture. he asked. was it the duty OF Con-
gross TO impose a tax upon commerce III
order TO maintain certain individuals III
idleness-to pay them for services never
rendered?
at Is contended that many OF the south
ern ports are rendered dangerous by the
shifting channels, and by the changing
conditions OF the sand-bars, and that a
man must be upon the round every day
in order to know the dangerous places
liz is hard to believe that this is true II
the ports OF Virginia, Georgia, South Car
olina, Alabama, or Texas, as the leslsid-
lures OF those States have declared tha'
their ports are safe without the services
OF a pilot. If the owner paid tax an
nual or otherwise. There IS not the slight
est danger that the service will go down
or will even be seriously crippled, by th'
proposed change. When pilots are neces
sary and can render the service, they ART
employed When they are not necessary
and their services are USED thea
should not be permitted to become
charge upon interstate commerce
THE principal complaint made to the
committee came from the pilots OF fehsd
cola, Fla, and yet II appears that iorelsi
vessels there paid pilots fees amountmt
to 1927. 1t also appears that during
the last year and half, notwithntaho
ing the fact that any American steam
vessel rcsv go into any port free OF pllot
age. yet every American steam Nessc
employed a pilot every time IL entered
the port Cf Pensacola. TIE simple, pam
fact remains. that where port IS easy
of access. the pilotage system VIII depend
as 1t ought to depend, upon foreign Ton
mage FOR its maintenance; that in every
mort difficult or dangerous OF access, tn
master will still employ the pilot, and th'
service will thus me maintained
is THE BILL PRACTICAL?
Mr.. Minor Republicam, of Wisconsin
who had Joined with the minority, ex
plained that his opposition to the bill
was based upon the belief that IT would
not and could not be made practical
that the Board OF Steamboat Inspector
were not qualified 10 license saliing-vesse
pilots, and II they were qualifed the!
had not the time TO do the work. MI
Minor asserted. also. that the cost o
pilotage was added 10 the schedule o
per paid for pilotage and not the ship
owner He advocated no change In III
present law, leaving the States 10 regu
late the matter Of pllotage In their seve
raj ports.
Mr.. Simpkins, OF Massachusetts,. ar
gued that the existence Of the laws Il
the nine States where the compulsor,
pilotage system still obtains, is viola
ton OF the constitutional inhibition o
class legislation He said that Vessel-own
ers had no objection 10 paying for pilots
services rendered, but they did object I
b.ing compelled to pay pilots for service
not rendered. He quoted figures to shoN
thu, rfot cn0"~ fu tHc southern STATE
absorbed from one quarter TO one hal
o. the net prOnts OF trips made TO thOs
ports by vessels from New England.
Mr.. Cummings DemocraU. OF NeN
York. opposing the bin, said IL had ap
peared in every Congress OF which h
had been member and was Gefgotn
in the Fffty-first Congress on a ques
ton OF consideration ii was q BIZ %
said drawn in favor of the vessel-owner
and against the pilots. Wac not the shir
owner already sufficiently protected? h
asked The coastwise trade was IN IN