Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-03-31
Supreme Court Decision.

Nor is there merit in the contention
mat. as the vessel in question was Brit
ish vessel, coming from IA foreign port
the state laws concerning pilotage are in
cohfhct with treaty between Great
Britain and the United States providing
t1at no higher or other duties or charges
Shall be imposed in any port of the
United States on British vessels than
those payable in the same ports by YES
SeIS OF the United States Neither the eX-
emptIon of coastwiSe steam vessels from
pliotage resulting from the law of the
Lnlted states nor any lawful exemption
OF coastw1se vessels created by the state
Jaw concerns vessels in the foreign trade
ana therefore any such eXemptions do
no operate to produce discrimination
against British vessels engaged in foreign
trade and i'll favor of vessels of the
United states in. such trade. In sub
stance the proposition but asserts that
because by the law of the United States
steam vessels in the coastWise trade
nave been exempt from pilotaSe regula-
TONS. therefore there is no power to sub
Ject vessels in foreign trade to pilotage
regulations. even although such regula-
IONS apply without discrimination to all
vessels engaged in such foreign trade
whether domestic or foreign
In other words, the court held that
there could be no discrimination where
there was no competition, and that as
American vessels can engage in the coast
wise trade. 1t was no violation of the
treaty if the regulations applied to all
vessels in the foreign trade. The reason
ing OF that decision applies equally well
10 the present situation
IN ms very able minority report the
gentleman from California Mr.. j. r.
knoWlands, thus eiucidates the decision:
The remarkable similarity of the facts
and conditions in the Olsen against Smith
y
parent In that case as in this it was
urged that law of the United States
granting an exemption in favor of yes
sels engaged in the coastwise trade was
III violation OF d treaty. The exemption
IN that case was from pilotage charges:
IN the present case it is from toll charges
Certainly it cannot he contended that
there is any distinction between the cases
in that regard.
In that case the language of the
treaty bound this country not to impose
any higher duties or charges on British
vessels than on vessels of the United
states in the same ports. But under the
local law British vessels We're required
TO pay pifotage charges while American
vessels were completely exempt from
such charges. A plain violation of the
treaty. the majority would say but in
effect the Supreme Court said: No: for
what we do or omit to do with regard to
our coastwise trade is of no concern to
any nation. for they cannot complain
with regard to a traffic in which thew
have no interest. No regulation. exemp-
ton or privilege which we see fit to grant
10 our coastWise trade is a Just subject
of complaint, for it does not concern yes
sells engaged i'll the foreign trade
Certainly the President has never read
the Olsen against Smith decision by our
court of last resort he never would
nave concluded that the exemption of
tolls on our coastwise trade was in plain
contravention OF our treaty with Great