| U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York | Apr 27, 1911
On the 28th day of December, 1908, the complainant, Williams, made written application to the defendants as inspectors for a license to act as pilot, master, etc., on vessels under 100 tons from Ogdensburg to Detroit on the St. Lawrence, Lake Ontario, Niagara river, Lake, Brie, and Detroit river. In his application he set forth his qualifications as follows:
“1 sailed my own large row and sail boat between Lake Ontario to below Alexandria Bay, 1875; sailed single handed, Steam Yacht ‘Muriel.’ Racine to Chicago, and about vicinity, 1880; greatest amount of single handling Steam Yacht ‘Vixen’ on Niagara River, Buffalo Harbor & Canals, 1894, Sometimes alone or with owners Farelady & lady friends, also with owner & friends, Taught Navigation & piloted their first trip over licensed route 2 freshly licensed pilots on above, Sailed Niagara River, Buffalo Harbor & Canals, several seasons on charter yachts as Engineer, 1892-8; Sailed Great Lakes as Engineer; Sailed 1000 Island District 0 seasons as Engineer on charter boats, 1898; One season Less© & Master of charter Steam Yacht ‘Little Mac’ from Clayton, 1902; Have State Master & Pilot License for certain lakes and Rivers; Also U. S. Motor boat license 15 tons; Also U. S. Engineers license 14th issue, 1908; Sailed alone Motor Boat length Onondaga Lake, Piloted 'Motor boat Oswego Canal, Oneida River & Lake. Brought Motor Boat Albany via Cohoes to Syracuse.”
This application failed to show that the said applicant for a license, Frank R. Williams, had had three years’ experience in the deck department of a steam vessel, motor vessel, sail vessel, or barge consort, and on the trial of this action it is conceded by the complainant, Williams, that at the time he made such application he had not had the three years’ experience required by sections 42 and 46 of rule 5 relating to licensed officers of the general rules and regulations prescribed by the board of supervising inspectors of the United States
Sections 42 and 46 of rule 5 read as follows:
“42. No original license as second-class pilot shall be issued to any person who has not had three years’ experience in the deck department of a steam vessel, motor vessel, sail vessel, or barge consort. The local inspectors shall, before granting a license ns second-class pilot, satisfy themselves that the applicant is qualified to steer; provided, that on the Mississippi and tributary rivers one year of such required experience must have been in the pilot house as steersman.
“46. No original license for pilot of any route shall be issued to any person, except for special license for steamers of 10 gross tons and under, who has not served at least three years in the deck department of a steamer, motor vessel, sail vessel, or barge consort, one year of which experience must have been obtained within the three years next preceding the date of application for license, which fact the inspectors may require, when practicable, to be verified by the certificate, in writing, of the licensed master or pilot under whom the applicant has served, such certificate to be filed with the application of the candidate.”
The defendants refused to give said Williams an examination for a license or the license for the reason he had not had such experience, and based their action on said sections of rule 5 of the said regulations.
The complainant, Williams, concedes that such regulations had been made, but contends that as matter of law the said regulations required an arbitrary experience, and that such regulations are not authorized by the statute, and are invalid for the reasons that the same, in so far as they require such experience, are not warranted by the statute, and that such a regulation was not within the intent of Congress and hence is not the law, and that such regulation is not a necessary, useful, and appropriate regulation, and that the same is not applicable to such a person as the complainant having the qualifications set forth in his application, and that such regulation is a deprivation of citizen's rights and is unconstitutional.
Section 4405 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3017) “Title 52, Regulation of Steam Vessels. 1. Inspection,” provides as follows:
“The supervising inspectors and the supervising inspector general shall assemble as a board once in each year, at the city of Washington, District of Columbia, on the third Wednesday in January, and at such other-times as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, for joint consultation, and shall assign to each of the supervising inspectors the limits of territory within which he shall perform his duties. The hoard shall establish all necessary regulations required to carry out in the most effective manner the provisions of this title, and such regulations, when approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall have the force of law. The supervising inspector for the district embracing the Pacific coast shall not be under obligation to attend the meetings of the board oftener than once in two years; but when he does not attend such meetings he shall make his communications thereto, in the way of a report, in such manner as the board shall prescribe.”
It is conceded that the supervising inspectors and the supervising inspector general assembled for consultation, etc., and established, among others, the regulations above quoted. This section of the Revised Statutes provides that such regulations when approved by the
"Whenever any person claiming to be a skillful pilot of steam vessels offers himself for a license, the inspectors shall make diligent inquiry as to his character and merits, and if satisfied, from personal examination of the applicant, with the proof that he offers that he possesses the requisite knowledge and skill, and is trustworthy and faithful, they shall grant him a license for the term of one year to pilot any such vessel within the limits prescribed in the license; but such license shall be suspended or revoked upon satisfactory evidence of negligence, nnskillfulness, inattention to the duties of bis station, or intemperance, or the willful violation of any provision of this title.”
I do not see how it can be held that the regulations 42 and 46 are unconstitutional or unnecessary or inappropriate. Nor do I see how it can be held that the regulations operate to deprive a citizen of his rights.
It is not one of the constitutional rights of the citizen to have a license granted him to act as pilot, master, and mate correspondingly of a steam vessel, or in either capacity on the navigable waters of the United States, unless he possesses the requisite knowledge and skill. The position of pilot is one of great power and responsibility. The licensed pilot has many lives and large property interests in his hands, and I see nothing unreasonable in fixing a standard of qualifications up to which the applicant must measure as a condition of receiving a license. It would have been the duty of the inspectors to grant an examination to the applicant, Williams, had it not appeared as he now admits that he does not possess the knowledge and skill required by the board of supervising inspectors. The rules and regulations adopted say that the pilot, before being licensed, must have the knowledge and skill gained by three years’ experience in the deck department of a steam vessel, motor vessel, sail vessel or barge consort. This applies to first-class pilots, second-class and special pilots. ■ Sections 41 and 42, rule 5.
Who is to determine the knowledge and skill required of a pilot if not the inspectors, and how are they to determine whether or not he possesses it if they have no standard ? Under our civil service laws we have standards up to which the applicant for public position must «measure. In our school affairs we have standards of acquirement and experience in teaching up to which the candidate must measure before being licensed to teach in certain positions. The granting of licenses to practice law have been made conditional on two or three years’ actual experience in the law office of a practicing attorney. Congress itself has not prescribed the qualifications of a pilot, but has committed the power and duty of prescribing such qualifications and determining whether or not.an applicant for a license possesses them to the inspectors.
In Olsen v. Smith, 195 U.S. 332" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1904-11-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/olsen-v-smith-96149?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="96149">195 U. S. 332, 344, 25 Sup. Ct. 52, 55 (49 L. Ed. 224" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1904-11-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/olsen-v-smith-96149?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="96149">49 L. Ed. 224), the Supreme Court of the United States said:
“It remains only to consider the contention based upon the fourteenth amendment and the anti-trust laws of Congress. The argument is that the right of a person who is competent to perform pilotage services to render them is ah inherent right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, and that therefore all state regulations providing for the appointment of pilots and restricting the right to pilot, to those duly appointed are repugnant to the fourteenth amendment. But this proposition in its essence simply denies that pilotage is subject to governmental control, and therefore is foreclosed by the adjudications to which we have previously referred. The contention that because the commissioned pilots have a monopoly of the business, and by combination among themselves exclude all others froih*705 .rendering pilotage services, is also but a denial of the authority of the state to regulate, since if the state has the power to regulate, and in so doing to appoint and commission, those who are to perform pilotage services, it must follow that no monopoly or combination in a legal sense can arise from the fact that the duly authorized agents of the state are alone allowed to perforin the duties devolving upon them by law. When the propositions just referred to are considered in their ultimate aspect they amount simply to the contention, not that the Texas laws are void for want of power, but that they are unwise. If an analysis of those laws justified such conclusion — which we do not at all imply is the case — the remedy is in Congress. in whom the ultimate authority on the subject is vested, and cannot be judicially afforded by denying the power of the state to exercise its authority over a subject concerning which it has plenary power until Congress has seen fit to act in the premises.”
In Atlee v. Packet Company, 21 Wall. 389, 22 L. Ed. 619, it was said:
*‘(5) A constant and familiar acquaintance with the towns, banks, trees, etc., and the relation of the channel to them, and of the snags, sand bars, sunken barges, and other dangers of the river as they may arise, is essential to the character of a pilot on the navigable rivers of the interior; this class of pilots being selected, examined, and licensed for their knowledge of the topography of the streams on which they are employed and not like ocean pilots, chiefly for their knowledge of navigation and of charts, and for their capacity to understand and follow the compass, take reckonings, make observations, etc.
“(6) Hence a pilot, who, though engaged for many years in navigating a part of the Mississippi, had not made a trip over that part for fifteen months previously to one which he was now making, and from ignorance of its existence ran his vessel against a pier which had been built in the river since he had last gone up or down it, was held to be in fault for want of knowledge of ihe pier. He was also held in fault for hugging, in a ¡dark night, the shore near where he knew the mill and boom of a riparian owner were, and against, a pier connected with which he struck, when the current of the river would have carried him into safe and deep water further out.”
No evidence has been offered in this case showing or tending to show that experience in the deck department of one or moré of the vessels named in the rules mentioned and complained of is not a necessary qualification for a pilot.
There will be appropriate findings and a decree dismissing the bill of. cornplaint, bub without costs.