Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Darden v. Thompson (1903), 44 S. E. 755, 101 Va. 635.

Recognition of State acts.-This provision indicates that Congress did not doubt the power of the States to legislate on the subject of pilots. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia (1851), 12 How. 299, 317, 13 L. Ed. 996; In re McNiel (1871), 13 Wall. 236, 241, 20 L. Ed. 624; Wilson v. McNamee (1880), 102 U. S. 572, 573, 26 L. Ed. 234.

An admission can not be inferred from this section of the concurrent rights of the States with Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States, since it merely adopted the existing and prospective laws of the States. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), 9 Wheat. 1, 207, 6 L. Ed. 23; Wilson v. McNamee (1880), 102 U. S. 572, 573, 26 L. Ed. 234.

Effect of acts of Congress for licensing pilots of steam vessels.-The act of 1852 providing for the inspection of steam vessels and the licensing of their pilots applied only to pilots for their voyages, not in entering or leaving harbors, and did not supersede State laws recognized by this section. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Joliffe (1864), 2 Wall. 450, 460, 17 L. Ed. 805.

Source of authority of State.-The State pilotage laws are enacted under an original power of the States, not under one conferred by the United States. The Chase (D. C. 1882), 14 Fed. 854.

Extent of authority of State.-Each State may license pilots, and provide regulations for their government and employment; but it can not exclude others duly licensed elsewhere from employment on the public waters of the Nation, either on the ground that those waters are within the territorial limits, or on the ground that the vessel to be piloted is bound to a port within its territory. The Clymene (D. C. 1881), 9 Fed. 164; The William Law (D. C. 1882), 14 Fed. 792.

Though Congress may legislate on the subject of pilotage throughout the United States, it has not manifested an intention to overrule the State laws except in one instance, and the law of a State imposing a forfeiture for the neglect of a vessel to take a pilot is not invalid. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia (1851), 12 How. 299, 320, 13 L. Ed. 996.

Louisiana may make it a criminal offense for a pilot not duly qualified under its laws to pilot a foreign vessel from the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans, though he holds a license under Mississippi. Leech v. Louisiana (1909), 29 Sup. Ct. 552, 553, 214 U. S. 175, 53 L. Ed. 956.

Where parties have a right, under the laws of the United States, to pilot vessels

in and out of the Mississippi River to the sea through South Pass, although they are not duly licensed and commissioned branch pilots under the laws of Louisiana, to imprison them for exercising this right is to imprison them in violation of the laws of the United States. United States ex rel. Spink (C. C. 1884), 19 Fed. 631; contra, State v. Livaudais (1884), 36 La. Ann 122. A State statute regulating pilotage and providing for a board of pilot commissioners with authority to license pilots and giving the commissioners 5 per cent of the fees collected by the pilots provides for a commission forming an essential part of pilotage establishment recognized by this section. The Queen (1913), 206 Fed, 148, 124 C. C. A. 214.

This act does not authorize a State to fix the compensation of pilots for services which are strictly those of salvors not pilots. Hobart v. Drogan (1836), 10 Pet. 108, 120, 9 L. Ed. 363.

Waters to which laws may extend.—A State may permit or require its pilots to tender their services to inward-bound vessels at a greater distance from the shore than 3 miles, or the outward limit of the pilot ground. Wilson v. McNamee (1880), 102 U. S. 572, 574, 26 L. Ed. 234; The Whistler (D. C. 1882), 13 Fed. 295.

State pilot laws have sufficient effect beyond the State boundaries to fix the compensation of pilots. The Nevada (D. C. 1874), Fed. Cas. No. 10,130.

64

The breakwater in Delaware Bay constitutes, within the act of Congress and the usage of navigation, a "port," in the proper and maritime sense of the term; and the offer of a Delaware pilot to take a vessel from sea into the breakwater is the exercise of a legitimate authority on his part, and the refusal of a vessel to accept his services entitled the pilot to half pilotage, according to the State law. The William Law (D. C. 1882), 14 Fed. 792.

Vessels subject to State laws. Where a steamship coming into the port of New York was spoken by a licensed pilot who offered his services, which were refused, such pilot had no lien for a sum claimed to be in lieu of services as provided by pilotage laws. Leitch v. The George Law (D. C. 1858), Fed. Cas. No. 8,223.

A State law making it unlawful for a vessel of her class to move at a greater speed than 4 miles per hour governs the movements of a Government transport leaving Norfolk Harbor. Southern Railway r. U. S. (1910), 45 Ct. Cl. 322.

Authority of Territories.-A Territory has power to pass pilot laws. The Panama (D. C. 1861), Fed. Cas. No. 10.702.

Jurisdiction over suits for pilotage fees.Courts of admiralty have jurisdiction of

suits for pilotage. Wave v. Hyer (C. C.), Fed. Cas. No. 17,300; The Wave (D. C. 1831), Fed. Cas. No. 17,297.

The right to half pilotage held not cognizable on the admiralty side of the court. Arcularius v. Staples (D. C. 1859), Fed. Cas. No. 509b.

State statutes relating to pilotage do not affect jurisdiction of Federal court, but only give an additional remedy. The George S. Wright (D. C. 1869), Fed. Cas. No. 5,340.

This and the following section by implication make applicable, in favor of pilots, the laws of either New York or New Jersey; and hence a New Jersey pilot

may sue in the Federal courts of New York for pilotage services rendered in New York waters. Reardon v. Arkell (D. C. 1894),' 59 Fed. 624.

Liability of vessel for pilot's negligence. The fact that the master of a vessel is by a State law compelled to take a pilot does not exonerate the vessel from liability for a collision caused wholly through the negligence of such pilot, The China (1868), 74 U. S. (7 Wall.) 53, 19 L. Ed. 67; Camp v. The Marcellus (C. C. 1860), Fed. Cas. No. 2,347; The Alabama (D. C. 1867), Fed. Cas. No. 122; Cook v. Curtis (1878), 58 N. H. 507.

1512. Pilots on boundaries between States.-The master of any vessel coming into or going out of any port situate upon waters which are the boundary between two States, may employ any pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of either of the States bounded on such waters, to pilot the vessel to or from such port. R. S. 4236.

Notes of Decisions.

Constitutionality. This section is sustainable as a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia (1851), 12 How. 299, 317, 13 L. Ed. 996.

Territories.-The term "State" includes an organized territory. The Ullock (1884), 19 Fed. 207; Neill v. Wilson (1887), 14 Or. 410, 12 Pac. 810.

State statutes affected by act.-A State statute which prohibits any one not licensed

under the authority of the State from piloting a vessel to a port within the State is void, so far as it interferes with the employment on public waters of pilots licensed by other States bordering thereon. The Clymene (D. C. 1881), 9 Fed. 164. So is the requirement of a State statute that the master receive the first pilot who tenders his services, since this section gives him an election as to which he shall take. The South Cambria (D. C. 1886), 27 Fed. 525. 1513. No discrimination in rates of pilotage.-No regulations or provisions shall be adopted by any State which shall make any discrimination in the rate of pilotage or half-pilotage between vessels sailing between the ports of one State and vessels sailing between the ports of different States, or any discrimination against vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, or against national vessels of the United States; and all existing regulations or provisions making any such discrimination are annulled and abrogated. R. S. 4237.

Notes of Decisions.

Validity of State statutes.-Section 1512 of the Code of Georgia, relating to pilotage, and containing discriminations between vessels sailing between the ports of the same State and vessels sailing between the ports of different States, is in conflict with this section. Spraigue v. Thompson (1886), 6 Sup. Ct. 988-990, 118 U. S. 90, 30 L. Ed. 115.

Only the discriminatory features of State pilotage laws are abrogated by this section. Olsen v. Smith (1904), 25 Sup. Ct. 52, 54, 195 U. S. 332, 49 L. Ed. 224.

No discrimination in State pilotage laws is made by the Virginia compulsory pilotage charge on all vessels (except coasting vessels having a pilot's license) either inward bound from the sea through the Virginia Capes to Smith's Point, Yorktown, Newport News, or Norfolk, and intermedi

ate points, ог outward bound to the sea from those points through the Capes, although compulsory pilotage does not prevail in all the inland waters of the State. Thompson v. Darden (1905), 25 Sup. Ct. 660, 661, 198 U. S. 310, 49 L. Ed. 1064, affirming judgment Darden v. Thompson (1903), 44 S. E. 755, 101 Va. 635.

The invalidity under this section of Pol. Code Cal. sec. 2468, exempting certain coasting vessels from liability for half pilotage does not exempt a vessel in the foreign trade from such liability under sec. 2466. The Alameda v. Neal (C. C. 1887), 32 Fed, 331, affirming (D. C. 1887), 31 Fed. 366. But half pilotage can not be collected under it from a vessel bound from San Francisco to New York. Freeman . The Undaunted (C. C. 1889), 37 Fed. 662.

[blocks in formation]

1514. Board of Engineers for rivers and harbors.-That there shall be organized in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, by detail from time to time from the Corps of Engineers, a board of five engineer officers, whose duties shall be fixed by the Chief of Engineers, and to whom shall be referred for consideration and recommendation, in addition to any other duties assigned, so far as in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers may be necesssary, all reports upon examinations and surveys provided for by Congress, and all projects or changes in projects for works of river and harbor improvement heretofore or hereafter provided for. And the board shall submit to the Chief of Engineers recommendations as to the desirability of commencing or continuing any and all improvements upon which reports are required. And in the cousideration of such works and projects the board shall have in view the amount and character of commerce existing or reasonably prospective which will be benefited by the improvement, and the relation of the ultimate cost of such work, both as to cost of construction and maintenance, to the public commercial interests involved, and the public necessity for the work and propriety of its construction, continuance, or maintenance at the expense of the United States. And such consideration shall be given as time permits to such works as have heretofore been provided for by Congress, the same as in the case of new works proposed. The board shall, when it considers the same necessary, and with the sanction and under orders from the Chief of Engineers, make, as a board or through its members, personal examinations of localities. And all facts, information, and arguments which are presented to the board for its consideration in connection with any matter referred to it by the Chief of Engineers shall be reduced to and submitted in writing, and made a part of the records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers. It shall further be the duty of said board, upon a request transmitted to the Chief of Engineers by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives, or the Committee on Commerce of the Senate, in the same manner to examine and report through the Chief of Engineers upon any projects heretofore adopted by the Government or upon which appropriations have been made, and report upon the desirability of continuing the same or upon any modifications thereof which may be deemed desirable.

The board shall have authority, with the approval of the Chief of Engineers, to rent quarters, if necessary, for the proper transaction of its business, and to employ such civil employees as may, in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers, be required for properly transacting the business assigned to it, and the necessary expenses of the board shall be paid from allotments made by the Chief of Engineers from any appropriations made by Congress for the work or works to which the duties of the board pertain. Sec. 3, act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 372). The word " 'five," in this section was superseded by a provision that the board should consist of seven members, a majority of whom should be of rank not less than lieutenaut colonel, by sec. 4, act of Mar. 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 826), post, 1515.

The provision for review of reports "so far as in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers may be necessary," was superseded by, post, 1515.

Notes of Decisions.

su

Power of Congress.-Congress has preme control of a navigable stream where the commerce thereo. is interstate and foreign. U. S. v. Rio Grande (1899), 19 Sup. Ct. 770, 174 U. S. 690, 43 L. Ed. 1136; Union Bridge Co v. U. S. (1907), 27 Sup.

Ct. 367, 204 U. S. 364, 51 L. Ed. 523; Philadelphia v. Stimson (1912), 32 Sup. Ct. 340, 223 U. S. 605, 56 L. Ed. 570; Hagerìa v. Mississippi River Power Co. (D. C. 1913), 202 Fed. 776.

1515. Reports on surveys reviewed by a board of Engineer officers.-That all reports on examinations and surveys authorized by law shall be reviewed by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors as provided for in section three of the river and harbor Act approved June thirteenth, nineteen hundred and two, and all special reports ordered by Congress shall, in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers, be reviewed in like manner by said board; and the said board shall also, on request by resolution of the Committee on Commerce of the Senate or the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives, submitted to the Chief of Engineers, examine and review the report of any examination or survey made pursuant to any Act or resolution of Congress, and report thereon through the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, who shall submit his conclusions thereon as in other cases: Provided, That in no case shall the board, in its report thus called for by committee resolution, extend the scope of the project contemplated in the original report upon which its examination and review has been requested, or in the provision of law authorizing the original examination or survey: Provided further, That said board shall consist of seven members, a majority of whom shall be of rank not less than lieutenant colonel. Sec. 4, act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 826).

Provisions for the organization of the board of engineers were made by sec. 3, act of June 13, 1902, mentioned in this sect on, set forth 1514, ante.

1516. Reports by the Chief of Engineers on river and harbor works. That the Secretary of War shall cause the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, in submi ing his annual reports to Congress with regard to works of river and harbor improvement under his charge, to state what deterioration, if any, has taken place by destruction, decay, obstructions, or otherwise, in connection with any of such works, together with an estimate of the cost of rebuilding, or repairing such works, or removing such obstructions; and he shall also cause the said Chier of Engineers to recommend, with his reasons therefor, the discontinuance of appropriations for any river and harbor work which he may deem unworthy of further improvement. Sec. 7, act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1150.) 1517. Printing of matter relating to river and harbor works.-Section thirteen of the river and harbor appropriation Act approved July twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and twelve, which authorizes the payment for printing of matter relating to river and harbor works from river and harbor appropriations, is repealed, and hereafter such printing shall be done and paid for out of regular annual appropriations for printing and binding for the War Department. Act of July 1, 1916 (39 Stat. 330), making appropriations for works on rivers and harbors.

1518. Employment of civil engineers on western and northwestern rivers.-The Chief of Engineers may, with the approval of the Secretary of War, employ such civil engineers, not exceeding five in number, for the purpose of executing the surveys and improvements of western and northwestern rivers, ordered by Congress, as may be necessary to the proper and diligent prosecution of the same; and the persons so employed may be allowed a reasonable compensation for their services, not to exceed the sum of three thousand dollars a year. R. S. 5253.

15184. Assistant engineers in charge of districts or members of boards.*** Provided further, That whenever it shall be necessary, in order to properly prosecute works of river and harbor improvement, the Chief of Engineers is authorized to detail for duty in charge of river and harbor districts

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »