14 F. 854 -

854

J'l!lDu.u. BEPOBTJilB.

mitted· for the purposes .of this motion, even if it were otherwise doubtful. (, Motion .grantedr.
i,

,.

.

See H1lbbrtrd v. Thompson, 14 FED. REP. 689; The" Mark Twain" Id.:728'; Yuengling v. SchUe, 12 FED. UEP. 97; MackayB v.Mallory, Id. 328; Chapman. v. Ferry, 693, and 696; Ehret v: Pie/'ce, 10 FED. \'tEP. [,53; B1trtoh v. Strattonj:J.2.FEI>. REP. 696, and note; 704; Shaw Stocking Uv. v. Mack,Id. 707,and llQte; 717.

THE CHASE.

Oou'1't, .8. D. Florida. December, 1882.)
LAWS,

lllesl bosrds power to fix: rates of pilotage are not void as'\ granting powers which may not . , be delegated. ,·,ri' , . ·
2. SAME.

"I (

They are enacted by a powerorfginally within the states an<l'not by that COIlferredby the Unhcd States.
3. SAliS,

They Peep nllt and uniform throughou,t the state, but may be reguaccorqing to local needs. .
4.

TO FIX

The power to fix and determine'rtites also authorizes the determining what proportion of the regular rates may be. demanded when services are tendered and ,. "

5.

(]LAUSE.

It :is l1 ot necessary that a repealing clause be embodied in an act; if the sub. stance olthe previous act is inconsililtent with that of the lluollequent one it is tepelded by'implication. . .

In A.dmiralty. , W. O.,,¥aloney, Jr., for libelant. G. Bowne Patterson, for respondent. LOCKE, D. J. The legislature of Florida, by the act of February 27, 1872, a, certain schedule of rates of pilotage, which should bepa,iit &j pilot by /lony'vaSile} entering any port of the state, when spoken, his sftlivioeswere'aocepted or not; but by the act of March: 7, 1819, it subs£lqqently,<!etllared' tha;tthe severllliboards of comDlisSlQlllerll; fQ'l'ctbeseveral ports of· the state should determine i the.. -l'a.tes ofpill>tage which· should be paid by any vessel at. their ports, such'rate not to, :be:greater than those then provided.

.s

,THEiCHA8Ei'

;.n

Under this act pilot' (l0ttitnissiorrers'('lf :tnlie port .of Key Westestablished a set ofrtilesaulhe'gtilaUons ;sCiheduleof rates, and providing that spoken; and. the service's"ofa pilot were to pay bu. t one-half the regular rates., . ,'" " , ," ;. · '. It is alleged, and not denied, that the libeled vess.el.in this case was spoken. while leaving port on '81 foreign voyage, ,hut did not accept the services of the pilot, and ,the bhly question is whether the pilot libeling is full under the first actofthelegislature, or but h'a.lf the 'the regulations'of the boarClofthe , pilot commissionef;s.· ". i" ' It has been eamestly contended ,in behalf of the libelant that the state has acted by'a.uthoritydelegatedbycongress, and the legislature hadilo powedo redelegateitto 'any infe'riorbody;thatthe constitu. tion of the state requires be,$eneral' and not' tocal;' and that since the original act 'was 'not 'repealed by any positive pealing clause it is"'stillin,f.<lr<Je !andtakes ,of congress of August', 11'89, in 'section 5'f .Rev·,Bt,,' that "all pilots in .t. Ii:· : i·' t1;J.e \ ,of the United States 'ai:lall continue to ,be regulated in; witll elisting)a w,l'l. pf (tpe states, !'t. with: sucla as :t4e atates I;ll.llij" re::spectiveJy enact:frn-the purpoae, '!. ;;,.:: I' · -.Queatious invol\'ing this enbjec,t. if .not, pave; heenhefore.the lmpreme ,CQlU:t !iIJ,;severlJ,l re.-, fetJ.ted to in opinions upon-l6'ndre4 ..TheqI:16stion whic,hp.f\s brought the ;al,l llqder the j;urisdic-> tion or cO,1ltrolof the federal that it :w:at!:;B.re· gulation of commerce, and the power of .makjug ilQ./:lh regulations had been by.the t,o, congress:! the question \Vas diso1.1ssed;was,G,ihboo8,v·. Ogdl1n, 9 Wheat. 2QZ. Thj:l, language of. the the;re WfloB,; ,'f
"AUhough 'enable a state 'to lldopt the prOVisions of a state on any SUbject: Whell'thegov·ei.;Ilment· of'the'Ul1ioll was brought into existence 'i1dolintla system.1ortlte· regulatWnlf. bfdts pilot>! in full force in eyerr stilt",. Jfq,e whichhll,l'l,been this, system, and gives it. tb)3, as if its had by; ; .The act ·an thIS subJect entirely to the states untIl congress ShOl1ld tbiIik llropertolntel'fere." .. '. , ,.:' ': . :' "... " ,.'
'i ,

j .. ', . ' .· I

'"j:;'

.

:

I.

: _}

'.',

j , ; ,- -

,_

;

. f.' f;

'

,

Again, 'Qo,ard,o!I1?Cttf: Row. 299., it is dechp;elJ,:' ':; 1 ; 1 OiL.'

.,,;:'

il

.

856

FEDERAL. REPORTER.

"Whatever subjects of thIs power are in their nature national, or admit of one uniform system or plan of reguli\tion, may justly be said to beaf such a nature as to require exclusive legislation by congress. That this cannot be affirmed of laws for the regulation of pilots and pilotage is plaiil. The act of 1789 contains a cIeal' and aiithOritati ve declaration by the first congress that the nature of this subject is such that until congress should find it necessary to exert its powers, it sh6Uld be left to the legislation ·of the states; that it is local and not national; that it is likely to be the best provided for, not by olle system or plan of regulations, but by laJ!! as the legislative discretion of the several states should deem applioaple to the local of th", ports within limits,. ,It ll1unifests the congress at the outset' of the government that the nature ofthis s'ubject 'is not such as'to reqUire its exclusive legislation. The practice of the states and the national government has been in confarmitywith'this declara.tion from the origin ,of the national govermnent to t,his time; and the nature (If the is snell as. to no dQubt of its. snperior and propriety·.Dotto say ' necessity diJIerent sy,stelI)s ..of l'egulaUons, drawn from local and experience, and cont6rmed to local" wants." . ,
" ", , ,., i ,

The·questionwas further discussed in thecaseEaJ parte McNeil, 13 Wa,}t 94:1; 'in wliiohthe doctrines ()fCooleyv. The Port Wardens was reaffirmed. See, also, Cribb v; S'ate,'9 Fla. 409. In Jones v. Cl{fford'8 Ex'r, 5 Fls.. 518,thedourt' cites the act of 1822; in which the board of port wardens had power "to establish such ordinances as they shall deem advisable, with the power to fix and alter the rates of pilotage," Stpparently approve and recognize the validity of it. I am satisfied that the 8stablishment6f local boards with power. to fix and' determine the rates of pilotage for the several ports of the state, and to decide which vessels, if any, may pay half and which whole rates, is in no way in conflict with the provisions of any act of congress. If further reasons were necessary upon this point, the health laws of the several states, wherein powarsare delegated to local boards, might be referred to, and reasoning from analogy establish the same point. The United 'States .statutes relating to public health are, if possiqle, mor,eexplicit in. speaking of the health laws of any state, and by no words do they recognize the local health laws of ports or cities; yet all local health laws made in conformity with state statutes are recognized by all departments of the general government, and treated with as much respect as they could be were they enacted by the legislators, and among the many questions which have arisen upon this subject, and regarding the conflicting interests of commerce, or local health, its fees,delays, and a:nnoyances, I have been unable to find that any objection has been made to a local or municipal law, when

857
in' accordance with the health laws of 8 state, because ,the actual minntite of the regulations were not det,ermined by the legislature. The only pl'oyision of the state constitution that could ,have any is that of section 18, art. 4, effect upon such delegation of which provides that "in tire several cases enumerated, in the ing section, audin allothei&when a genera;! law oan be, madeapplicab1e, the law shall be general and uniform the state," Except "in the cases enumerated," it is aqueetion for,the legislature to decide whether a general law can be made applicable" to the best advantaglJ,and the passing of a local orie would b$,&!declaration that in its opinion the local\ htw would be better; and I doubt if any court would,'interfereunless the law was one 80 positively in opposition to the spirit of the constitution as to be unquestionable. , But has the legislature-enacted alocallaw·touehing this matter? The law relied upon is as general in its character as anyone could be; as general as, the laws that petmitthecounty commissioners to,determine their compensation or the of 'the county 80licitor, or tlte'lboaJld of'instruciion ,tQ establish the pay/of the county superintendent. There may be under each of these laws as many different results as there are counties in the, state. I do tipt conlilider it so a law clause of ,the 'cop.stitution., ; ; :.. ' Although the later did ,not by actual words repeal thedormer one, yet there can be no question but what it was the inten,tion of the legislature to leave the entire matter in the hands of the local boards. The spirit of the,law, is to be ,considered, and if it is found to be in conflict with the" pre-existing law it virtually repeals it as fully as if it 'did ab 'by a direct repealing cla.use,aIid of that in this caSe there can be no Since the organization of the state government no less than 25 aets have been passed lipan this subject, and by a large majority of these local boards have been given full and complete powers to make rules and regulations, establish rates and change the same, as deemed best; and under them full power in regard to compensation has been claimed and exercised.' Ill' no case has the right to fix rates been held to bEl separate from the question of compulsory pilotage, nor has Elither question been passed upon or tre'ated separately. It waS not the question of the rate per foot that brought about the act of 1879, but that of compulsory pilotage, either haIfor whole rates. The amount which was to be paid a pilot who had rendered service has nevor been objected to or deemed unreasomtble,but the

nDmRAL iBEPORTEL

'eonflicthas' been between the ,represehtatives '01 those,vessels which did not employ pilots and the piklts themselves j and leaving the entire matter tbthEdocal boa,rds, as had,bean tha case under three-fourths of all the previous legislation upon ,the subject, was, without doubt, the quickest rand most satisfactory manner of determining. it. In my opinion it'was the intention,of the legislators that the local boards should have power, not only' to determine what rates should be paid"bya vBssel ep:1ploying"apiiot, but also by one spoken that does·not'accept 8s:irvicesli ''Phe ·queation of rights. of pilots under a tenderharJ.dJ.iretusu of.: services ·h&.8 peen. settled, land it declared that there ·is iafl'impliedpronlise'oo, pa",' the amoun' determined to be in accordaqce, with Jaw.' It isnijl; a right or penalty given ·by a locaJ board. !! t; . The'state Jaw ms' & substantial .right ,Jor an amount which 'maybe, measured and. determinetlby ,such commissioners, and enfOlioed! by an :a,dmiraltJ'l iCOUlt:81l1 it might enforce' any other:implied marineo0Ilt,ract. Tl!Latamount in' this case is the half of the usual rate,,: and the decreaywiU:follow I aiCool'dinglv. Vide Wilson v·. met,,102(U. S. 572·.,: ',,, k
j,

I.' .

See:L,'he REP. The Francisco GarU"!''llo, Itt . 495(The'WtllianiLaw, 'ld. 792;'1'h8'(WhiStler, IS 'FED. REF. 295; The Olymene, 12 FED. REP. 346: The Lora Olive, 10 FED. REP. 135; The GZal'amara·. 111.678. . ,

.

Jl'r":·,·:;.;,,

I:'

,;

':

.

·'1,'

' . ,

',"

i'r

;1'"

Ross

SUE

ti. BOURNE.

BEAMll;N'S WAGES-RIGH'fS TO

IN

ADMIRALTY.

In' the' absenctl ot legislation on the sul;Jject by congress, the right of a seaIl)anto, sue ,in. tile in ver,ona-?n .for his wages is not taken away or suspended by aniittachment of his by trustee process in an action &$ l!\w. . , : " , . ,

In Admiralty. C. Bonney aqd T. A. Codd, for libelant. E:L.1!arn(3!!, forl"e&pondent and the attaching creditor. NELSON, J. This iss. libel in personam' for seamen's wages. on the sixteenth of June, 1882, he shipped The bark Helen aqd Mary, of New Bedford, of which the respondent is pwner, ·then. lying at Marble island, in Hudson's bay, in the prosecution. of a whaling voyage, at the one

r.