Anderson v. Pacific Coast Steamship Company

United States Supreme Court

225 U.S. 187

Anderson  v.  Pacific Coast Steamship Company

 Argued: February 21, 1912. --- Decided: May 27, 1912

[Syllabus from pages 187-188 intentionally omitted]

[Statement of Case from pages 188-192 intentionally omitted]

'On appeal to this court it has become apparent that the decision of the two cases involves a question of conflict of jurisdiction between the State and the Federal government as to the pilotage of all steam vessels touching at both foreign and domestic ports on the one voyage, and also as to the pilotage of the large number of registered steam vessels now engaged in traffic between ports of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts of the United States, both by way of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the Isthmus of Panama and around South America. The decision will also affect the very large number of steam vessels which may reasonably be expected to sail between American ports on the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, via the Panama canal.

'In determining the intent of Congress in passing the act of February 28, 1871, the court had under consideration the following statutes: the act of August 7, 1789 [1 Stat. at L. 54, chap. 9], codified in § 4235 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 2903), recognizing and adopting the pilotage regulations of the various states so far as bar and entrance pilotage is concerned; § 9, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the steamship act of August 30, 1852, creating a certain class of Federal pilots (10 Stat. at L. 67, chap. 106, re-enacted in chapter 100, §§ 18 and 14 of the act of February 28, 1871 [codified in Revised Statutes, §§ 4442 and 4438, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, pp. 3037, 3034]; act of May 27, 1848, [9 Stat. at L. 232, chap. 48] [codified in Revised Statutes, § 3126, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 2036]), permitting registered vessels sailing between ports of the United States to trade with foreign ports; § 20 of the act of February 18, 1793 (1 Stat. at L. 313, chap. 8, codified in Revised Statutes, § 4361, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 2980), providing for the regulation and duties of officers on registered vessels as to the carriage of foreign goods and distilled liquors and the making of manifests.

'The members of the court are unable to agree as to the interpretation of the cited portions of § 51 of the act of February 28, 1871, codified in Revised Statutes, § 4401 and 4444, and for this reason, and because of the importance of the interests affected, both governmental and commercial, the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit certify the following questions to the United States Supreme Court, and request its instructions upon them:

'1. Are coastwise seagoing steam vessels, sailing under register, and having officers with Federal pilot's licenses, free from any liability for pilotage fees created by §§ 2468, 2466, and 2432 of the Political Code of the state of California, upon the proper tender of services of resident bar pilots of the state pilotage establishment, when entering or leaving the port of San Francisco, by virtue of § 51 of the act of February 28, 1871, entitled, 'an Act to Provide for the Better Security of Life on Board of Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam,' as re-enacted of date December 1, 1873, in §§ 4401 and 4444 of the Revised Statutes?

'2. Are there any provisions of title 52 of the Revised Statutes which may be construed as exempting coastwise seagoing steam vessels sailing under register, whose officers have Federal pilot's licenses, from any liability for pilotage fees created by §§ 2468, 2466, and 2432 of the Political Code of the state of California, upon the proper tender of services of resident bar pilots of the state pilotage establishment, when entering or leaving the port of San Francisco, state of California, under the rule of construction laid down in the last sentence of § 51 of the act of February 28, 1871, entitled, 'An Act to Provide for the Better Security of Life on Board of Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam,' and as re-enacted in § 4444 of the Revised Statutes?

'3. Did Congress intend to classify with the 'coastwise vessels' referred to in the last proviso of § 51 of the act of February 28, 1871, entitled, 'An Act to Provide for the Better Security of Life on Board of Vessels Propelled in Whole or in Part by Steam,' and re-enacted in § 4444 of the Revised Statutes, registered steam vessels engaged in commerce with both foreign and domestic ports on the same voyage?

'4. Did Congress, in enacting the last proviso of § 51 of the act of February 28, 1871, re-enacted in § 4444 of the Revised Statutes, intent to exempt registered steam vessels whose officers have Federal pilot's licenses, from any liability for pilotage fees created by §§ 2468, 2466, and 2432 of the Rolitical Code of the state of California, upon proper tender of services of resident bar pilots of the state pilotage establishment, on entering or leaving the port of San Francisco on regular voyages, on which they steamed to Victoria, British Columbia, and carried cargo, mail, and passengers direct thereto and direct therefrom; when, after leaving Victoria, British Columbia, on the outward voyage, they steamed to Puget sound ports of the state of Washington, for which they had originally cleared, and returned therefrom to Victoria, British Columbia; when the stop at Victoria, British Columbia, is for about an hour on each occasion; when at least ninety (90) per cent of the passenger and cargo traffic for the outward and inward voyages is between the port of San Francisco and the ports of Washington; and when the traffic with the foreign port may be deemed en route between the domestic ports?'

Mr. William Denman for Anderson and Jordan.

Mr. Graham Summer, with whom Mr. George W. Towle, Mr. Thomas Thacher, Mr. Thomas D. Thacher and Mr. Leland B. Duer were on the brief, for Steamship Companies.

Mr. Justice Hughes, after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes