Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/91245/anderson-vs-pacific-coast-steamship-co
Timestamp: 2017-01-19 19:27:08
Document Index: 109285728

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4401', '§ 2468', '§ 9', '§ 4401', '§ 20', '§ 4361', '§ 3126', '§ 4444', '§ 4401', '§ 4401', '§ 4444', '§ 4401']

Anderson Vs Pacific Coast Steamship Co - Citation 91245 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Anderson Vs. Pacific Coast Steamship Co. - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/91245CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnMay-27-1912Case Number225 U.S. 187AppellantAndersonRespondentPacific Coast Steamship Co.Excerpt:
anderson v. pacific coast steamship co. - 225 u.s. 187 (1912)
the provisions of former federal statutes relating to pilotage were incorporated in §§ 4401 and 4444, rev.stat., which are..... Judgment:
Distinctions between registered and enrolled vessels and history of statutes relating to state pilotage of registered and coastwise vessels reviewed, and
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 steamers
were regularly sailing under register, and were either on a voyage from the port of San Francisco in the State of California to a United States port on Puget Sound or from a United
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
on leaving port and the
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:"
and it has long been established by the decisions of this Court that, although state laws concerning pilotage are regulations of commerce, they fall within that class of powers which may be exercised by the states until Congress shall see fit to act.
53 U. S. 321
Steamship Company v. Joliffe,
69 U. S. 459
80 U. S. 240
195 U. S. 341
. In 1837 (5 Stat. 153), it was provided that a master of a vessel entering or leaving a port situate upon waters which are the boundary between two states might employ a pilot licensed by either state. There was no other federal legislation upon the subject of pilots until 1852,
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."
The Act of August 30, 1852, c. 106 (10 Stat. 61), contained provisions for the licensing of pilots of steam vessels (§ 9,
Ninth, id.,
67). In
, it was contended that the statute of the State of California of May 20, 1861, providing for port pilots at San Francisco was in conflict with this act, but the Court took the contrary view, holding that the federal law did not relate to port pilots. The Court said (pp.
69 U. S. 460
-461):
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.
"SEC. 51.
that all coastwise seagoing vessels, and vessel[s] 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 act, 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. 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, 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:
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."
These provisions were incorporated in §§ 4401 and 4444 of the Revised Statutes, which are still in force.
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.
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.
3 Wall. 566,
70 U. S. 571
See Huus v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co.,
182 U. S. 392
182 U. S. 395
. The Act of December 31, 1792 (1 Stat. 287, c. 1), applicable exclusively to vessels engaged in foreign commerce and to their
registry, and the Act of February 18, 1793 (1 Stat. 305, c. 8), relating to vessels engaged in the coasting trade and fisheries, and to their enrollment, constituted the basis for the regulations of the two classes. The latter act contained a provision (§ 20,
313; R.S. § 4361) that any registered vessel when employed in going from one district in the United States to any other district should "be subject (except as to the payment of fees) to the same regulations, provisions, penalties, and forfeitures" as those prescribed in the case of vessels licensed for carrying on the coasting trade. This, however, had no reference to pilotage, for Congress had not made regulations upon that subject. In 1848 (Act of May 27, 1848, 9 Stat. 232, c. 48, R.S. § 3126), it was provided that any vessel, "on being duly registered," might engage in trade between ports of the United States,
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."
. 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.
The statute was thus construed in
Murray v. Clark
(1873), 4 Daly, 468,
58 N.Y. 684, where a steamer sailing under register between New York and New Orleans, and touching at a foreign port, as was her privilege, was held to be subject to the law of the State of New York as to pilotage in entering the port of New York, although at the time she was under the control of her master, who was a pilot licensed by the federal inspectors. In
Joslyn v. Nickerson
(1880), 1 F. 133, while it was held that a libel for pilotage could not be sustained, for the reason that the law of Massachusetts
"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,
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."
118 U. S. 96
, where a claim for pilotage under the law of Georgia was disallowed, the steamer "was a coastwise seagoing steam vessel," and "was not sailing under register." In
Huus v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co.,
182 U. S. 394
, after quoting from §§ 4401 and 4444 of the Revised Statutes, the Court said: