Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-03-05
pILo1 CASE DECIDED.
Chancellor Ad Litem spruance Restraints
the Board.

the BOarus
William G. Spruance, chancellor ad
litem, handed down his decisionruesday
afternoon in the "parlor car pilots"
case. Mr.. Spruance sat in the superior
court room and the attorneys interested
in the case we're present. The suit
bears the name of Walter il. Virden
vs. Board of Pilot Commissioners The
complainant was represented by Brad
ford, Vandegrift & Byrne, and the de-
PENDANTS by Levi @. Bird. B. Frank
Townsend, who is member of the
Board Of Pilot Commissioners, was
present
Court having been opened by Crier
Smith, Mr.. Spruance announced that
he was ready to give his views in the
case, and was satisfied that he had
reached the right conclusion. He then
proceeded TO read his opinion. The
case is an injunction suit, brought by
Virden against the Pilot Commissioners
to restrain them from suspending him.
After quoting from the law concern
ing pilots, Mr.. Spruance took up the
facts in the case before him, quoting
from the action of the Pilot Commits
sioners in last September, when they
passed resolutions to prohibit pilots
from going to any foreign port to bring
in vessel, except under special rule
laid down by the board, providing
that pilot should be selected from
pilot boats in order.
| Before /the resolutions went into
effect, which was October lst, 1898,
the complainant went to Halifax, where
he boarded an Allen line steamer and
when it reached pilotage ground be-
came its pilot. He was afterwards
cited to appear before the Pilot Com.
missioners, when motion to suspend
him was made.
| The complainant denies the validity
of the board s resolutions and asks that
| they be set aside and that the board
| be restrained from suspending him or
| putting upon him penalty.
Mr.. Spruance said that the weight of
evidence showed that the plan pursued
| by Virden was injurious to the pilot
| service. He took the view that where
| il seemed desirable that pilot should
join vessel at port of cali, the plan
CT rotation adopted by the Pilot Com
| missioners WIS reasonable.
| Mr. Spruance went into the question
| of putting IA penalty upon Virden, and
reached the conclusion that il was be-
yond the power of the board to suspend
| Virden's license, as the act of Legisla-
tiire did not grant the board such
power in case of violation of its rul es.
He decided also that the penalty of
| forfeiture of pilotage fees could not be
enforced against the complainant The
| board could not levy penalty upon an
| act committed before the passage of
the rule to make the nenalty.
Upon the question of the jurisdiction
Of the court of chancery, Mr. Spruance
reached the conclusion that it had
| jurisdiction.
He concluded as follows:
"The decision in this case need not
seriously, emharrass the board in the
| enforcement of said rules. 1t can pre-
scribe suitable pecuniary fines for their
| violation, and without making such
| fines excessive or unreasonable, they
may be fixed at such amounts as will
thereafter make the practice com
| planned of impossible.
"a decree will be entered perpetually
enjoining the defendant corporation,
81. From the enforcement of the sald
rules, or any of them, against the COM
plainant for his alleged violation
thereof, by the penalties of suspension
and forfeiture of pilotage fees, or
either of them.
So From the enforcement of the
said rules, or any of them, by suspen-
sion or forfeiture or deprivation of
license.
"3. From the enforcement of said
rules, or any of them, by any penalty
whatsoever, except such as shall have
been prescribed before the commission
of the offense." "
Levi C. Bird, counsel for the pilot
commissioners, will look into the mat
fer of possible appeal from the de-
cision of the Chancellor ad litem.