State ex rel. Foss Co., Inc. v. Kelly, 26052.
Citation | 186 Wash. 589,59 P.2d 373 |
Decision Date | 09 July 1936 |
Docket Number | 26052. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. FOSS CO., Inc., et al. v. KELLY et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of the Foss Company, Inc., for a writ of prohibition against E. Pat Kelly, as director of the Department of Labor and Industries, and others. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed with instructions.
John S Robinson, of Seattle, for appellants.
G. W Hamilton and W. A. Toner, both of Olympia (Daniel Baker, of Olympia, of counsel), for respondents.
The appellants, as plaintiffs, by this action sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prevent the defendants from in any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce chapter 200, Laws 1907 (page 425), as against them. From a judgment of dismissal, entered after trial on the merits, the plaintiffs have appealed.
The material facts are now very little in dispute and may be briefly summarized as follows: The appellants own and operate 139 motor-driven tugs, of which 111 are less than 65 feet in length. Some of these tugs are registered and the remainder are all enrolled and licensed under federal laws. For the most part, these tugs are employed in intrastate commerce, but some tow to and from British Columbia ports and some tow back and forth across the Columbia river, or from other ports in Washington to ports in Oregon. Practically all of these tugs are capable of engaging in interstate or foreign commerce and will do so if and when opportunity offers. Some of the larger tugs have towed and will tow to California ports. The main business, however, of most of the tugs is confined to moving vessels engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, and other work in and about the harbors where they are stationed.
The United States government has for many years maintained a steamboat inspection service, but neither that nor any other federal agency has been empowered by federal legislation to inspect motordriven tugs for seaworthiness or as to the condition of their mechanical equipment, or to license the officers who operate them.
Chapter 200, Laws 1907 (page 425), is a comprehensive and complete code for the inspection and regulation of every vessel operated by machinery which is not subject to inspection under the laws of the United States.
It is charged by the complaint and admitted by the answer that unless prohibited the department and its officials will (1) enforce as against the appellants and their vessels the provisions of section 9 of the act referred to (page 431), relating to signal lights; and (2) that appellants will be proceeded against for penalties unless, among other things, they will do the following:
The appellants' main contentions are (1) that Congress has exclusive power to make laws for the government of foreign and interstate commerce, which includes the power to make rules governing navigation upon the navigable waters of the United States; that as to some things its power is absolute and exclusive and as to others, where there is a concurrent power, legislation by the state must give way when Congress has occupied the field whether such legislation conflicts with federal legislation or not; and (2) that therefore the state had no right to legislate as to most of the provisions of the act in question. Some other questions are presented which, however, it does not appear necessary to consider.
There are lakes within the state which are navigable. These are land locked and both sides agree that the state has exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to the navigation thereon and that this act of the Legislature may and does apply to all vessels operating on such land locked waters.
Within, or adjacent to the boundaries of the state, are also navigable waters known as inland waters, over which the federal government has control, and the high seas, over which the federal control is limited by international rules which our government has adopted by agreement with other maritime nations.
While the appellants' tugs mostly operate in inland waters, some go upon the high seas and, in any event, if the state may not legislate in the manner here disclosed with reference to operations in inland waters, of course it cannot do so with reference to operations upon the high seas.
The federal legislation with respect to vessels and navigation in navigable waters is of vast extent and seemingly it covers every situation and condition which the Congress has considered to be necessary or advisable to cover. Even row boats are required to carry a lantern showing a white light to be exhibited under certain conditions. U.S.C., title 33, § 77 (33 U.S.C.A. § 77).
All of the vessels involved in this case, whether registered or enrolled and licensed to engage in the coastwise trade, come under the federal legislation. Motorboats not more than 65 feet in length are defined and regulated by chapter 16, title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C.A. § 511 et seq.). True, that chapter does not require inspection for seaworthiness or the examination and licensing of officers, but presumably, Congress went as far in the regulation of such boats as it thought to be necessary.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 17, 6 L.Ed. 23.
Upon this question of occupancy of the field, the railroad cases seem to be in point and to support our view that Congress has here occupied the field. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Washington, 222 U.S. 370, 32 S.Ct. 160, 56 L.Ed. 237, and Southern Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 236 U.S. 439, 35 S.Ct. 304, 59 L.Ed. 661.
The exception to this rule, if it be an exception, seems to be with reference to state legislation affecting pilots and pilotage. In Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 12 How. 299, 314, 13 L.Ed. 996, the federal Supreme Court upheld legislation by the state of Pennsylvania on this subject on the ground, apparently, that though Congress had the power to regulate and when a uniform rule was necessary that power was exclusive, yet as to pilotage, uniformity was not necessary and the states might act. It was there said:
This court in State v. Ames, 47 Wash. 328, 92 P. 137, recognized the right of the state to legislate on the subject of pilotage and gave the reason as being that Congress had not attempted to regulate the whole subject of pilotage.
Whether this court, in the Ames Case, supra, gave the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelly v. State of Washington Foss Co
...respondents, holding the statute invalid 'if applied to the navigable waters over which the federal government has control.' 186 Wash. 589, 596, 59 P.(2d) 373, 376. We granted certiorari. 299 U.S. 539, 57 S.Ct. 322, 81 L.Ed. 396. After hearing, we ordered reargument, and requested the Attor......
-
Strmich v. Department of Labor and Industries, 26085.
... ... rule under this state of the record: ... 'We ... ...