« ForrigeFortsett »
renewal, the bank obtained a control over it which otherwise it did not possess, and this control it surrendered on the redelivery. In view of the effort that was being made to reduce the obligations of the company held by the bank, it cannot be thought surprising that the note with the collateral was taken up before maturity. It was not shown that the bank had anything to do with the credit to the Titus Sheard Company in its account with the Newport Knitting Company. Nor does it appear that the bank knew of the condition of this account or had any reason to believe that it was proposed to set off the payment against an indebtedness to the bankrupt.
The bank dealt with the Titus Sheard Company as the endorser of the paper; and the trustee failed to establish any right to recover the moneys it received.
COAST STEAMSHIP COMPANY, CLAIMANT OF THE STEAMSHIP
QUEEN.” JORDAN v. PACIFIC COAST COMPANY, CLAIMANT OF THE STEAMSHIP “UMATILLA,” ETC.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Nos. 641, 642.' Argued February 21, 1912.-Decided May 27, 1912. 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. The provisions of former Federal statutes relating to pilotage were
incorporated in 88 4401 and 4444, Rev. Stat., which are still in force. In adopting the Revised Statutes change of arrangement from earlier
Statement of the Case.
225 U. S.
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.
statutes relating to state pilotage of registered and coastwise vessels
officers with Federal pilot's licenses are not free from liability
88 4401 and 4444, Rev. Stat.
may be construed as exempting coastwise sea-going vessels
of the act of February 28, 1871.
referred to in the last proviso of $ 51 of the act of February 28,
on the same voyage.
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 per cent of the traffic, are subject on entering and leaving the port of San Francisco to the state pilotage laws of California as contained in 88 2468, 2466 and 2432 of the Political Code of that State.
THE certificate in these cases is as follows:
“The libels in the above cases involve the question of power of a State to make pilotage regulations for certain classes of registered sea going steam vessels when entering and leaving harbors within the confines of the State.
“The steamers 'Queen' and 'Umatilla' 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) per cent of passengers and cargo was carried between the United States ports and the parties stipulated that the voyage for which the vessels cleared was beween 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 twentyfour hundred and sixty-six (2466) of this code.
"2466. Rates of pilotage at San Francisco. The following shall be the rates of pilotage into and out of the
Statement of the Case.
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) per cent. 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 questions are based are printed in parallel columns as follows: “'An act to Provide for the “Revised Statutes Title
Better Security of Life on LII. Regulation of
"SECTION 51. And be it “R. S. 4401.'. .. and further enacted that
every coastwise sea going
every coastwise sea-going steam vessel subject to the steam vessel subject to the navigation laws of the navigation laws of the Uni- United States, and to the ted States, and to the rules rules and regulations aforeand regulations aforesaid, said, not sailing under regnot sailing under register, ister, shall, when under shall, when under way, ex- way, except on the high cept on the high seas, be seas, be under the control under the control and di- and direction of pilots lirection of pilots licensed by censed by the inspectors of the inspectors of steam- steamboats.' boats.
Nor shall “R. S. 4444. '. any pilot charges be levied shall any pilot charges be by any such (State) au- levied by any such (State) thority upon any steamer authority upon any steampiloted as herein provided er piloted as provided by Provided, how- this title
Nothever, that nothing in this ing in this title shall be conact shall be construed to strued to annul or affect annul or affect any regula- any regulation established tion established by the laws by the laws of any State reof any State requiring ves- quiring vessels entering or seis entering or leaving a leaving port in any such port in any such State, State, other than coastwise other than coastwise steam steam vessels, to take a pilot vessels, to take a pilot duly duly licensed or authorized licensed, or authorized by by the laws of such State, or the laws of such State, or of of a State situate upon the a State situate upon the waters of such State.' waters of such State.'
“(The above in a single paragraph.)
"The pilots, appellants here, libelled the vessels in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The two cases were consolidated for trial in