Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-13

Judge A. r. Hanckel, of the Corpo-
ration Court, yesterday rendered his
decision in the harbor masters fee
case, sustaining the decision OF Police
Justice r. w. Tomlin declaring uncon-
stitutional that part of the law in dis
pute. The effect of this decision will be
that the collection of the harbor mas
ters' fee of 50 on vessels over rs feet
in length entering this port must
cease. 1t is held that except when act
ual services are rendered no harbor
masters assessment on any vessels en-
tering this port shall be collected.
There is probability, of course, that
the Board of Harbor Commissioners
may order the case appealed to the Su-
preme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
President r. A. Dobie, of the board.
was unable to say yesterday what
would be done in this respect. He said
the board would have to advise with
It's counsel, Mr.. r. NJ. Hughes before
taking any action. II it is decided to
appeal the collection of fees by the
harbor masters will continue in spite
of Judge Hanckel's decision, he said.
as 1t was kept up I'm spite of Justice
Tomlins decision
me case was argued at length be-
lore Judge Hanckel by Mr.. Hughes for
me harbor master and Mr. James +,
Heath. Jr., for Captain Grng. OF Phil
adelphia. owner OF the vessel unon
which the Zee which caused the litiga-
ton was levied.
THE DECISION
Judge Hanckers decision is present
ed In full below:
c. ]. Duke, IIarbor Master.
Frank Jones,
IN DEBT.
In the case at tho bar the plaintIr
Is one of the Harbor Masters of the
port OIL Norfolk and Portsmouth. and
brings TINS warrant In debt against the
ueiendant, who is the owner of four
certain parges engaged in the coasting
trade between this port and their home
port, Philadelphia. The debt cIaimnd
consists of four fees of three dollars
(3) each. payable under the regulations
adopted by the Board of Harbor Com
mlsloners of Norfolk and Portsmouth
liking the compensation of Harbor Mas
tiers.
ms claim is resisted by the de-
tendant on the ground that the fees In
question constitute n tonnage duty on
the vessels. and that the regulation of
The Harbor Commissioners prescribing
them is regulation of commerce in
conflict with what is popularity known
as the commerce clause Of the Consti-
tuition of the United States.
Under section 2015. Code OF Virginia.
edition of 1887. as amended by an act
adopted February &c. 1890, the Legisl;l-
ture OF Virginia has provided that the
Board of Harbor Commissioners shall
appoint annually three Harbor Masters,
and may prescribe their du-
ties. fix their compensation and re-
move them at pleasure. In pursuance
of this authority to fix the compensa-
ton of Harbor Masters, the board
adopted. among others, the following
regulations 'They (the Harbor Mas
ters) shall also be entitled to receive
from all vessels in the cOasting trade
arriving here. whose length over all is
seventy-hve feet and upwards, a fee
OF three dollars (s9). to be paid only
once in twelve months"
Before proceeding to the discussion
of the constitutional question arising
in the case, it should be stated that
1t is agreed between counsel that these
barges are engaged in the coasting
trade; that each is over seventy-fve
feet long, and that no service was
actually requested OF the Harbor Mas
Ter ny said barges, nor did the Tarbor
Master actually go near said barges
or tender any service specially to them.
IT, then, this port regulation is n valid
exercise of power vested in the Board
of IIarbor Commissioners there can be
no doubt that the defendant comes
within its scope and is bound to pay
the debt claimed in the warrant.
rms brings us directly and unavoid-
ably TO the consideration of tho cues
ton of whether this particular port
regulation Is CT tonnage duty Drohib-
tied by the Constitution of the United
States to n State without the assent of
Congress or is such n regulation OF
commerce as falls within that provision
OF the Constitution which provides
that the Congress shall have power to
regulate commerce with foreign ma
lions and among the several States.
&c.
1t would be tedious, and fortunately
Is unnecessary, to cite, discuss and
compare the almost numberless cases
in which the principle involved here
has been under consideration in the
supreme Court of the United States
and the courts of many of the States.
And 1t might perhaps prove difficult to
appreciate the reasoning by which the
frst-namcd court has distinguished be-
tween half-pilotage. when no service
has been rendered. and Port Warden
charges. where likewise no service has
been rendered. upholdng the one as n
proper exercise of State power. while
overthrowing the other as an invasion
Of the exclusive domain OF Congress-
tonal legislation. Such an investlga-
zion has. however, been rendered I'M