Court Opinion

ID: 9417438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:15:38.373293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:42.296919
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Bradley
dissenting.
I cannot agree to the judgment in this case. It seems to me that it carries the application of the statute to an unreasonable length. The boat in question was a mere skiff, not larger than a ship’s yawl, with a capacity not exceeding that of a good-sized canoe, without deck, with a boiler not much larger than a tea-kettle, and a cylinder of seven inches stroke, and not much larger than a pop-gun. I think we are in danger of sticking in the bark by construing the statute as requiring such a vessel to be inspected. Indeed, it seems to me, that the terms of the law do not apply to such a boat. Its language is, “ every ferry-boat, canal boat, yacht, or other small craft of like character.” Section 4426. The same section declares that *228“ no such vessel shall be navigated without a licensed engineer —and a licensed pilot.” The boat in question is not of “ like character,” within the meaning of the. statute. It seems absurd to require a man to have an inspection made of a mere skiff which he has rigged up to take him across the river to his shops, and to have a licensed engineer and licensed pilot to navigate it. With all due respect, I think it is running the application of the statute into the ground.