Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/225/187/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:14:02+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 225 › Anderson v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.
When the federal Constitution was adopted, each state had its own pilotage regulations.
State pilotage laws are regulations of commerce, but they fall within that class of powers which may be exercised by the states until Congress shall see fit to act.
statutes will not be regarded as altering their scope and purpose; an intent of Congress to change the effect of prior law will not be presumed unless clearly expressed.
Coastwise seagoing vessels sailing under register and having officers with federal pilot's licenses are not free from liability for pilotage fees under state laws by virtue of § 51 of the Act of February 28, 1871, 16 Stat. 440, c. 100, as reenacted in § 4401 and 4444, Rev.Stat.
There are no provisions in Title 52 of the Revised Statutes which may be construed as exempting coastwise seagoing vessels sailing under register, whose officers have federal pilot's licenses, from liability for pilotage fees under state laws, under the rule of construction laid down in the last sentence of § 51 of the Act of February 28, 1871.
Congress did not intend to classify with the coastwise vessels referred to in the last proviso of § 51 of the Act of February 28, 1781, as reenacted in § 4444, Rev.Stat., registered steam vessels engaged in commerce with both foreign and domestic ports on the same voyage.
The wisdom of establishing federal rules as to port pilotage for such registered vessels now exempted is a question for Congress to determine.
In this case, held that American registered steam vessels sailing from San Francisco clearing for final destination to American ports and return, but stopping at foreign ports en route for less than ten percent of the traffic, are subject on entering and leaving the port of San Francisco to the state pilotage laws of California as contained in §§ 2468, 2466 and 2432 of the Political Code of that state.
"The libels in the above cases involve the question of power of a state to make pilotage regulations for certain classes of registered seagoing steam vessels when entering and leaving harbors within the confines of the state."
States port on Puget Sound to said port of San Francisco, but, in either such case, said vessels did, while en route between said ports of the United States, stop at the port of Victoria, B.C., to and from which port of Victoria she did then carry and did then and there deliver and receive both passengers, mail, and freight. Both vessels sailed direct to Victoria from San Francisco and direct to San Francisco from Victoria. At least ninety (90) percent of passengers and cargo was carried between the United States ports, and the parties stipulated that the voyage for which the vessels cleared was between Puget Sound ports of the United States and San Francisco, with the right to stop and trade en route at Victoria. The stop at Victoria on each occasion was for about an hour. The officers of each vessel had federal pilot's licenses, and each vessel was in fact piloted in entering and leaving the port of San Francisco by such an officer. Each of the vessels was tendered pilotage services -- the Umatilla on leaving port and the Queen on entering -- by a resident bar pilot of the port of San Francisco, duly commissioned and acting under the law of the State of California. In each case, the tender was declined. The ships refused to pay the pilotage fees imposed by the following sections of the Political Code of the State of California:"
" 2468. Pilotage and half pilotage. All vessels sailing under an enrollment and licensed and engaged in the coasting trade between the port of San Francisco and any other port of the United States shall be exempt from all pilotage unless a pilot be actually employed. All foreign vessels and all vessels from a foreign port or bound thereto, and all vessels sailing under a register between the port of San Francisco and any other port of the United States shall be liable for pilotage as provided in section twenty-four hundred and sixty-six (2466) of this code."
harbor of San Francisco: all vessels under five hundred (500) tons, three ($3.00) dollars per foot draught; all vessels over five hundred (500) tons, three ($3.00) dollars per foot draught and three (3c.) cents per ton for each and every ton registered measurement; and every vessel spoken inward or outward bound except as hereinafter provided shall pay the said rates. A vessel is spoken by day by a pilot boat displaying a union jack or by night displaying a torch or flare up within a distance of three (3) miles of the vessel. In all cases where inward-bound vessels are not spoken until inside of the bar, the rates of pilotage herein provided shall be reduced fifty (50) percent. Vessels engaged in the whaling or fishing trade shall be exempt from all pilotage except where a pilot is actually employed."
" 2432. Vessel, owner, etc., liable for pilotage. All vessels, their tackle, apparel, and furniture, and the master and owners thereof, are jointly and severally liable for pilotage fees, to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction."
"On February 28, 1871, Congress enacted an act 'for the better protection of persons on vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, etc.,' section 51 of which is pertinent to these cases. This section was in 1873 reenacted in sections 4401 and 4444 of the revised statutes. The portions of the section and its subsequent codification on which the court's question are based as follows:"
" An act to Provide for the Better Security of Life on Board of Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam."
" SECTION 51. And be it further enacted that . . .
every coastwise seagoing steam vessel subject to the navigation laws of the United States, and to the rules and regulations aforesaid, not sailing under register, shall, when under way, except on the high seas, be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the inspectors of steamboats. . . . Nor shall any pilot charges be levied by any such [state] authority upon any steamer piloted as herein provided . . . Provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed to annul or affect any regulation established by the laws of any state requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in any such state, other than coastwise steam vessels, to take a pilot duly licenses, or authorized by the laws of such state, or of a state situate upon the waters of such state."
" Revised Statutes Title LII. 'Regulation of Steam Vessels.'"
" R.S. 4401. . . . and every coastwise seagoing steam vessel subject to the navigation laws of the United States, and to the rules and regulations aforesaid, not sailing under register, shall, when under way, except on the high seas, be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the inspectors of steamboats."
" R.S. 4444. . . . nor shall any pilot charges be levied by any such [state] authority upon any steamer piloted as provided by this title. . . . Nothing in this title shall be construed to annul or affect any regulation established by the laws of any state requiring vessels entering or state, other than coastwise steam vessels, to take a pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of such state, or of a state situate upon the waters of such state."
the district court. It was contended that there was a conflict between the federal and the state law as to the control of the vessels for the purposes of bar pilotage. The libelants relied upon the state law giving the resident state bar pilotage control of the vessels in question when entering or leaving port. The district court held that the federal law excluded these vessels from state control, and the libels were dismissed."
"On appeal to this Court, it has become apparent that the decision of the two cases involves a question of conflict of jurisdiction between the state and the federal government as to the pilotage of all steam vessels touching at both foreign and domestic ports on the one voyage, and also as to the pilotage of the large number of registered steam vessels now engaged in traffic between ports of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts of the United States, both by way of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the Isthmus of Panama and around South America. The decision will also affect the very large number of steam vessels which may reasonably be expected to sail between American ports on the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans via the Panama Canal."
18, 1793 (1 Stat. 313, codified in Revised Statutes, § 4361), providing for the regulation and duties of officers on registered vessels as to the carriage of foreign goods and distilled liquors and the making of manifests."
"The members of the court are unable to agree as to the interpretation of the cited portions of § 51 of the Act of February 28, 1871, codified in Revised Statutes, sections 4401 and 4444, and for this reason, and because of the importance of the interests affected, both governmental and commercial, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certify the following questions to the United States Supreme Court, and request its instructions upon them:"
"1. Are coastwise seagoing steam vessels, sailing under register, and having officers with federal pilot's licenses, free from any liability for pilotage fees created by sections 2468, 2466, and 2432 of the Political Code of the State of California, upon the proper tender of services of resident bar pilots of the state pilotage establishment, when entering or leaving the port of San Francisco, by virtue of section 51 of the Act of February 28, 1871, entitled, 'an Act to Provide for the Better Security of Life on Board of Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam,' as reenacted of date December 1, 1873, in sections 4401 and 4444 of the Revised Statutes?"
for the Better Security of Life on Board of Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam,' and as reenacted in section 4444 of the Revised Statutes?"
"3. Did Congress intend to classify with the 'coastwise vessels' referred to in the last proviso of section 51 of the Act of February 28, 1871, entitled, 'An Act to Provide for the Better Security of Life on Board of Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam,' and reenacted in section 4444 of the Revised Statutes, registered steam vessels engaged in commerce with both foreign and domestic ports on the same voyage?"
"4. Did Congress, in enacting the last proviso of section 51 of the Act of February 28, 1871, reenacted in section 4444 of the Revised Statutes, intend to exempt registered steam vessels whose officers have federal pilot's licenses from any liability for pilotage fees created by sections 2468, 2466, and 2432 of the Political Code of the State of California upon proper tender of services of resident bar pilots of the state pilotage establishment on entering or leaving the port of San Francisco on regular voyages on which they steamed to Victoria, British Columbia, and carried cargo, mail, and passengers direct thereto and direct therefrom when, after leaving Victoria, British Columbia, on the outward voyage, they steamed to Puget Sound ports of the State of Washington for which they had originally cleared, and returned therefrom to Victoria, British Columbia when the stop at Victoria, British Columbia, is for about an hour on each occasion, when at least ninety (90) percent of the passenger and cargo traffic for the outward and inward voyages is between the port of San Francisco and the ports of Washington, and when the traffic with the foreign port may be deemed en route between the domestic ports? "
"all pilots in the bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and ports of the United States, shall continue to be regulated in conformity with the existing laws of the states respectively wherein such pilots may be, or with such laws as the states may respectively hereafter enact for the purpose, until further legislative provision shall be made by Congress."
"a clear and authoritative declaration by the first Congress that the nature of this subject is such that, until Congress should find it necessary to exercise its power, it should be left to the legislation of the states,"
and thus "for more than sixty years" it was "acted on by the states, and the systems of some of them created and of others essentially modified during that period." Cooley v. Board of Wardens, supra, p. 53 U. S. 321.
"The Act of 1852 was intended, as its title indicates, to provide greater security than then existed for the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or part by steam. . . . The act contains few provisions relating to pilots; indeed, it was not directed to the remedy of any evils of the local pilot system. There were no complaints against the port pilots; on the contrary, they were the subjects of just praise for their skill, energy, and efficiency. The clauses respecting pilots in the act relate, in our judgment, to pilots having charge of steamers on the voyage, and not to port pilots, and the provision that no person shall be employed or serve as a pilot who is not licensed by the inspectors has reference to employment and service on the voyage generally, and not to employment and service in connection with ports and harbors."
"when under way, except upon the high seas, be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the inspectors of steam vessels, vessels of other countries and public vessels of the United States only excepted."
year, however, this section was amended by the addition of a proviso that the act should not be construed to "annul or affect any regulation established by the existing law of any state, requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in such state" to take a state pilot (Act of February 25, 1867, c. 83, 14 Stat. 411). The existing state laws respecting port pilotage again became operative. Sturgis v. Spofford, 45 N.Y. 446, 451; Henderson v. Spofford, 59 N.Y. 131, 133.
regulation which will impede such pilots in the performance of their duties, as required by this act, nor shall any pilot charges be levied by any such authority upon any steamer piloted as herein provided, and in no case shall the fees charged for the pilotage of any steam vessel exceed the customary or legally established rates in the state where the same is performed: Provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed to annul or affect any regulation established by the laws of any state requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in any such state, other than coastwise steam vessels, to take a pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of such state, or of a state situate upon the waters of such state."
change of arrangement which placed portions of what was originally a single section in two separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. For it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed. United States v. Ryder, 110 U. S. 729, 110 U. S. 740; United States v. LeBris, 121 U. S. 278, 121 U. S. 280; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 144 U. S. 302; United States v. Mason, 218 U. S. 517, 218 U. S. 525.
"every coastwise seagoing steam vessel subject to the navigation laws of the United States and to the rules and regulations aforesaid, not sailing under register, shall, when under way, except on the high seas, be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the inspectors of steamboats."
This covers port pilotage, for it relates to such vessels "when under way, except on the high seas," and it applies only to those "not sailing under register."
American vessels are of two classes -- those registered and those enrolled and licensed.
"The purpose of a register is to declare the nationality of a vessel engaged in trade with foreign nations, and to enable her to assert that nationality wherever found. The purpose of an enrollment is to evidence the national character of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade or home traffic, and to enable such vessel to procure a coasting license. The distinction between these two classes of vessels is kept up throughout the legislation of Congress on the subject, and the word 'register' is invariably used in reference to the one class, and 'enrollment' in reference to the other."
"with the privilege of touching at one or more foreign ports during the voyage, and land and take in thereat merchandise, passengers and their baggage, and letters and mails."
the necessary effect of the limitation of the requirement was to exempt the coastwise seagoing steam vessels which did sail under register from its terms.
As these registered vessels were free from this federal regulation, they would be under no compulsion whatever as to port pilotage save by virtue of the operation of state laws. And it is an inevitable conclusion, on considering the prior history of pilotage regulations in this country and the policy which has been maintained with respect to the exercise of state authority, that, as Congress did not see fit to require federal pilots, it left the regulation of port pilotage as to such vessels to the states.
"And no state or municipal government shall impose upon pilots of steam vessels herein provided for any obligation to procure a state or other license in addition to that issued by the United States, nor other regulation which will impede such pilots in the performance of their duties, as required by this act; nor shall any pilot charges be levied by any such authority upon any steamer piloted as herein provided. . . ."
license, or any regulation which would impede them "in the performance of their duties, as required by this act." The "steamer piloted as herein provided" was the steamer required to be so piloted, and it was upon such steamer that no pilot charges were to be levied by state authority. The same construction must be given to these provisions as reenacted in § 4444 of the Revised Statutes, where the words "piloted as provided by this title" take the place of the words "piloted as herein provided." The federal requirement as to port pilotage of coastwise seagoing steam vessels was applicable only to those "not sailing under register;" as to those which sailed under register, there were no port pilots provided for, and the regulation of pilotage in the case of such vessels entering and leaving the state ports was left to the states. The fact that a vessel of this sort had on board a pilot holding a federal license when the services of such a pilot were not required by the federal law did not oust the state of the power to compel the use of a state pilot.
"Provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed to annul or affect any regulation established by the laws of any state requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in any such state, other than coastwise steam vessels, to take a pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of such state, or of a state situate upon the waters of such state."
"a coastwise steam vessel sailing under register which is not piloted by a federal pilot may be compelled by the state to take a state pilot when entering or leaving port."
And if in any case the vessel might be forced to take a pilot under the state law, it would necessarily follow that it is not excluded by the proviso from the operation of that law. The natural interpretation of the proviso is that it was intended to prevent misapprehension as to interference with local rules -- to declare the continued efficacy of those rules when not in conflict with the federal authority -- and not to introduce an independent limitation of state power over port pilotage with respect to registered steam vessels, where the federal control had not been asserted. The enacting clause and the proviso are to be read together "with a view to carry into effect the whole purpose of the law." White v. United States, 191 U. S. 545, 191 U. S. 551. So read, the words "other than coastwise steam vessels" must be deemed to refer to those "not sailing under register," to which the requirement of federal pilots applied. The same meaning must be ascribed to this clause as it now appears in § 4444 of the Revised Statutes, taken, as it must be, in connection with § 4401.
"This statute [referring to the federal Act of 1866] has been modified, and the employment of such a pilot is now compulsory only upon coasting steam vessels not sailing under a register. Rev.Stat. § 4401. Murray v. Clark, 4 Daly 468, aff'd, 58 N.Y. 684. This vessel therefore was not bound to carry such a pilot, and was bound by any law of Massachusetts which might require her to take a local pilot. R.S. § 4444."
"The general object of these provisions seems to be to license pilots upon steam vessels engaged in the coastwise or interior commerce of the country, and at the same time to leave to the states the regulation of pilots upon all vessels engaged in foreign commerce."
There, the steamer was enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade under the laws of the United States, and was engaged in trade between Porto Rico and New York after the treaty of cession. It was held that she was not within the pilotage laws of New York.
in the light of the well known conditions of trade which existed at the time of its enactment, between coastwise seagoing steam vessels, not sailing under register, and those which did sail under register. Whether or not it is wise to establish federal rules as to port pilotage for the registered vessels exempted from this regulation is a question for Congress to determine.
We conclude that each one of the questions certified should be answered in the negative.
"SEC. 4401. All coastwise seagoing vessels, and vessels navigating the Great Lakes shall be subject to the navigation laws of the United States, when navigating within the jurisdiction thereof, and all vessels, propelled in whole or in part by steam, and navigating as aforesaid, shall be subject to all the rules and regulations established in pursuance of law for the government of steam vessels in passing, as provided by this title, and every coastwise seagoing steam vessel subject to the navigation laws of the United States, and to the rules and regulations aforesaid, not sailing under register, shall, when under way, except on the high seas, be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the inspectors of steamboats."
"SEC. 4444. No state or municipal government shall impose upon pilots of steam vessels any obligation to procure a state or other license in addition to that issued by the United States, or any other regulation which will impede such pilots in the performance of the duties required by this title; nor shall any pilot charges be levied by any such authority upon any steamer piloted as provided by this title, and in no case shall the fees charged for the pilotage of any steam vessel exceed the customary or legally established rates in the state where the same is performed. Nothing in this title shall be construed to annul or affect any regulation established by the laws of any state requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in any such state, other than coastwise steam vessels, to take a pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of such state, or of a state situate upon the waters of such state."

References: v. 
 § 51
 § 4401
 § 51
 § 51
 § 4444
 § 4361
 § 51
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4444
 v. 
 § 4444
 § 4401
 § 4401
 v. 
 § 4444