port, in completion of her obligations on the last voyage. ('7) The bottomry and supply claims before the arrival of the vessel, in the inverse order of their several dates; the claims being independent, and not concurrent. (8) The maflter's lien for wages is recognized, as given by the Italian law; but it must be postponed, in case of a deficiency, to those liens which the master hashimseIf contracted, and upon which he is personally responsible. As between him and the lienors to whom he is answerable, he cannot be allowed to withdraw the fund from the registry to their prejudice. The Selah, 4 Sawy. 40; The Velax, 21 Fed. Rep. 479. 'fhe bills being more than sufficient to absorb the residue, there ",ill be nothing left for the master. . necessary disbursements upon each libel or petition, in enforcing the above claims, will be added to each lien, and paid with it in the same order of priority.
August 1, 1887.) .
(Oircuit Oourt. No D. Oalifornia.
Section 2466, Pol. Code CaL, providing rates for pilotage and half pilotage to be char/!;ed vessels entering the port of San Francis·co. is.not so affected by the joint operation of section 2468, Pol. Code Cal., exempting vessels sailing between Ban Francisco and .ports in Oregon. Washington, and Alaska from half pilotage, and Rev. St. U. S. § 4237 forbidding, discrimination in rates for pilotage and half pilotage, as to exempt vessels sailing from a foreign port to Ban Francisco from liability for half pilotage, but s.ection 2466 will prevail. and section 2468 fail. so faras its provisions come within the United States statute forbidding discrimination in pilotage rates. .
Appeal from District Court, N. D. California. See 31 Fed. Rep. 366. Milton Andros and Page & Eel8, for appellant. P. D. Wigginton and Lloyd & Wood, for appellee. FIELD, J 11stice.. The libelant is a licensed pilot for the harbor ot San Francisco, under the laws of California and of the United States, and on the nineteenth of March, 1887, within the cruising grounds of pilots, and outside of the bar of the harbor, he spoke the steam-ship Alameda, an American vessel, coming from the Hawaiian islands to San Francisco,· and tendered to the master of the vessel his services as pilot. The services were declined, and the steam-ship entered the harbor without having on board any licensed pilot. The pilot thereupon demanded of the master half pilotage, under the laws of the state. Its payment being refused, he filed his libel against the vessel in the district court of the United States for the amount, namely, $83.78. 'rhe Oceanic Steam-ship Company appeared as claimant, and ,tiled a peremptory exception to the libel, on the ground that the laws of the state allowing half pilotage. were, by the proVisions of section 4237, Rev. St. U. S., rendered inoperative and
void. 'That section declares, that ."no regulations or provi'sions shall be adopted by any state which shall make any discrimination in the rate of pilotage or half pilotage between vessels sailing 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 aU existing regulations or provisions making any such discrimination are annulled and abrogated." The laws of thE! state bel:tring upon the question are found in sections 2466an<:12468, Pol. Code. ,Section 2466 provides that "the following shall be the rates of pilotage into or out of the harbor of San Francisco: All vessels Under five,hundred tons, $5 per foot draft; all vessels over five hl1ndred:tQns, five dollars per foot draft, and four cel1tsper ton for each and every ton registered measurement. 'When ,a vessel is spoken inward or outward bound, and the services of a pilot are declined, onehalf of the above rates shall be paid. In all cases where inward-bound vessels are not spoken until 'inside of the bar, the rates ofpilotage and half pilotage above provided shall be reduced 50 per cent. Vessels engaged in the whaling of'fishing trade shall 'be exempt from all pilotage, except where a pilot is actually employed. " Section 2468 provides that "all vessels coasting between San Francisco and any port in Oregon, or Washington or Alaska territories, and all vessels coasting between the ports ,of '!J:Iisstate, are exempt froin all charges for pilotage unless, a pilot be actually, ,employed." The, di,strict court overruled the exception of the claimant to the libel, and the, yaseis brought to ,tliecircuit court on appeal. The contention of the claimant and appellant is that the exemption, under section. ,2468, Pol. Code, of certain coasting vessels from the charge of half pilotage, has the effect of'bringing the w.l;lole system of regulations for half pilotage prescribed by section 2466 within the inhibition ofthe£edlmtI statute, though the vessels against which it is made chargeable by that section come from a foreign port. If such be the effect of the exemption of the coasting vessels, the whole pilot system will be seriously impaired, and its usefulness greatly lessened. The allowance of half when the' serviGes of a pilot have been tendered and refused, waysheen deemed an essential rueans of establishing and efficient body of port pilots. . As said by the supreme court of the UnitedSt;ttes; in a case in which had tbehonor to be its orgall, nearly a quarter of acentury ago, speaking of regulations respecting pilots of the harbor of San Francisco, and of the to them of half pilotage when their services were tendered and declined:. "The object 9.f the regulations established by the statute ",as to create a body of hardy and skillful seamen! thoroughly ,acquainted with the harbor, to pilot vessels seeking to enter or depart from the port, and thus give security to life and property exposed to the'dangers of a difficult navigation. This object would be.ina great degree defeated if the selection of a pilot were left I;o.tbe master of the vessel, or the exertions of the pilot to reach
THE ALAMEDA V. NEAL.
the vessel, in order to tender his services, were withontany remuneration. The experience of·al1 commercial states has shown the necessity, in order to create and maintain an efficient class of pilots, of providing compensation, not only when the services tendered are accepted by the master of the vessel, but also when they are declined. If the services are accepted, a contract is created bet ween· the master or owner of the vessel and· the pilot; the terms of which, it is true, are fixed by the statute, but the transaction is not less a contract on that If the services tendered are declined, the half fees allowed are by way of compensation for the exertions and labor made by the pilot, and the expenses and. risks incurred by him in placing himself in a position to render the services, which, in the majority of cases, would be required." Steam-Ship 00. v. JOliffe, 2 Wall. 456. The position of the claimant and appellant is that this system, so far as it provides for half pilotage, has been abolished with respect to aU ve&sels, by reason of the discriminations adopted with respect to coasting vessels. I am not able to accept this conclusion. It is true that section 2468, POI. makes discriminations within the prohibition of the federal statute. It exempts from charges for pilotage, unless a pilot is actually vessels coasting between San Francisco and a port in Oregon, or in Washington or in Alaska territories, but it does not exempt from such charges vessels coasting between any other port of California and a port in that state or in those territories. It also exempts from such charges vessels coasting between ports of the state, and does not exempt from the charges vessels saiiing between those ports and ports of other states. But it does not seem to me to be a reasonable inference that because an exemption was thus made by the legislature in favor of certain coasting vessels between the ports of the state and between its principal port and ports on the coast in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, that it would not have allowed half pilotage in any case, even where the vessel to which the 'services of a pilot were tendered was coming from a foreign port,had not this exemption of coasting vessels from such charges been allowed. There is no such necessary connection between the two things as would justify the inference that the charge would· not have been allowed in the one case, if the exemption were not permitted in the other. The federal statute prohibits regulations by any state making a discrimination in the rates of pilotage or half pilotage between certain vessels engaged in· the coasting trade, or against vessels propelled in whole Dr in part by steam, or against national vessels; and it abrogates all existing regulations thus discriminating. But it has no further operation; it in no respect impinges upon any other regulations, or touches the general s)Jstem of pilotage or half pilotage, with respect to vessels engaged in foreign commerce. The prohibited discrimination, if previously made, is abrogated; if subsequently made, it is inoperative to defeat regulations otherwise valid. Discriminations in rates of pilotage in favor of certain vessels engaged in the coasting trade are, by their terms, necessarily limited, ahd could t4erefore nev,er have been ,designed to affect the pilotage or half pilotage of vessels· engaged ihforeign commerce. The discrimination asta coasting .vessels being invalid, 8ection2466 stands, as respects other vessels,
Whether the coasting vessels are, by the invalidity of the discrimination as to them; brought under the operation of section 2466, is a question not necessary-. to determine. It may be said that the discrimination indicates the intent of the legislature that such vessels should be exempt from half pilotage; but it maybe also said that it is to be presumed that the legislature only intended the discrimination in case it could be lawfully made. We should hesitate to attribute to it a designed disregard of the federal statute. But as said above, the question is not before us for deciSion. The case is essentially different from Spraigue v. Thomp8on, 118 U. S. 90, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988. There it was sought to charge a coasting vessel which was excepted from pilot charges by the Code of Georgia; here it is sought to except from such charges a vessel engaged in foreign commerce because of an exemption by the Code of California in favor of certain coasting vessels,-an exemption contained in an independent section. I am .of opinion that the decision of the district court was correot. It is therefore affirmed.
in lull force.
THE FLUSHING. THE NIAGARA.
CoLLINS tI. THE FLUSHING
(Clircuit Oourt, 8. D.New York. July 19,1887.)
OoLLuIOw-LtGHTS Awn SIGNALS-COSTS.
The canal-boat C., while in tow of the tug N. on a short hawser, was Injured bl a collision with the ferry-boat F., off Eighth strellt, New York, at near 6 0 clock P. M. The N. with her tow was decendilig the East'river, which was quite full of ice, extending from the Brooklyn shore beyond the middle of the river, on an ebb-tide Her course lay as far off the New York shore 88 was cony-enient, having regard to the ice. Between Eighth and Ninth streets the tqg and tow met a flotilla of two tugs and two car-flats, bound up the river. The N. had the regulation lights set and burning, and pursuant to sig. nal, ,the tug. and tow and flotilla passed starboard to starboard. As they passed. the N. was at le8st400 feet off the Ninth-street pier. The ferry-boat F., starting from the slip at t:leventh street. had stopped to allow the flotilla to pasS,·andnow exchanged signals with the N. to pass on her course across the bow of the F. The F.'s pilot did not see the N,'s lights indicating she had a tow; and, as soon as the flotilla passed, the F. started ahead, and collided with the canal-boat C. Held, the collision was caused solely by the fault of the F .. Held, alBo, as the cirpumstances probably justifled the libelant in joining theN. u a co-respondent with the F., that he was entitled to the costs of the district court against the F., and the N. was entitled to the costa of the clrcuitcourt against theF.
Jowia.h Hyland, for the Niagara. NatMn B,ijur, for appellee.
The libelant's canal-bQat Curtis, while in tow ofthe Iteam-tug Niagll-ra, was injured bya collision with the steam