State v. Ames
| Decision Date | 19 October 1907 |
| Citation | 47 Wash. 328,92 P. 137 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. AMES. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Jefferson County; Geo. C. Hatch, Judge.
Charles W. Ames was charged with violating the pilotage laws of the state. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the information and dismissing the prosecution, the state appeals. Reversed and remanded.
U. D Gnagey, for the State.
On February 20, 1906, the prosecuting attorney of Jefferson county filed an information against the respondent, accusing him of violating the pilotage laws of the state of Washington; the charging part of the information being as follows: 'The said Charles W. Ames, within one year preceding the filing of this information, in the state of Washington, in and upon the waters of the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, on her voyage inward and outward bound, under continuous contract for hire, the steamship Craighall did wrongfully and unlawfully pilot, to Port Townsend, Washington, from Port Townsend to Tacoma, and from Taccoma to Port Townsend, the said steamship then and there being a foreign vessel, to wit, the British steamship Craighall, without first obtaining from the duly authorized appointed, qualified, and acting pilot commissioners for the different ports on the Straits of Fuca, Puget Sound and their branches, a valid license so to do, and, without holding such license, the said Charles W. Ames then and there not being the master of the said vessel, and the said pilot commissioners for the different ports on the Straits of Fuca, Puget Sound, and their branches, duly appointed, qualified, and acting as aforesaid, then and now residing at Port Townsend, Jefferson county, Washington, contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Washington.' To this information the respondent demurred, which demurrer the trial judge sustained, and, on the refusal of the state to plead further, discharged the defendant and dismissed the action.
We have not been favored with a brief on the part of the respondent, and consequently are not advised as to which of the several grounds upon which the information was attacked in the court below he deems controlling. Hence we shall notice only those that seem to us to be the more plausible. Briefly stated, they are the following: (1) That the Legislature of the state of Washington has no power to regulate pilotage on the public waters within its boundaries, since the power to so regulate is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; (2) that the pilotage act is insufficient and void, since it embraces subjects not expressed in its title; (3) that the act makes an unconstitutional discrimination between citizens of the state; (4) that the law is too indefinite to be carried into execution, since it provides different penalties for the same offense; and (5) that the act applies only to the pilotage of sailing vessels, not these propelled by steam.
Taking up these contentions in their order, the first to be noticed is the claim that Congress has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate pilotage within the public waters of the United States. This contention is true only in a limited sense. Congress undoubtedly has paramount jurisdiction to regulate pilotage in the public waters, and, in so far as it sought to exercise that jurisdiction, it acts upon the subject are supreme, and supersede all state laws. But Congress has not attempted to regulate the entire subject of pilotage. So far it has confined itself to the regulation of pilotage as to vessels engaged in the coastwise or interior commerce of the country, making no provision at all as to pilotage of vessels engaged in strictly foreign commerce. The states, therefore, are free to enact laws regulating the pilotage of vessels engaged in foreign commerce, and the statute in question, in so far as it does this, conflicts with no federal statute, and is to that extent valid. It may be that it purports also to regulate pilotage on coastwise vessels. If it does, it is only inoperative to that extent. It is a valid law as to all its other provisions. Huus v. New York, etc., Steamship Co., 182 U.S. 392, 21 S.Ct. 827, 45 L.Ed. 1146. As the vessel mentioned in the information was engaged in strictly foreign commerce, the statute was applicable to her condition, and the respondent violated its provisions when he acted as her pilot without procuring the required license.
The title of the pilotage act is as follows: 'An act to establish pilots and pilot regulations for the straits of Juan De Fuca, Puget Sound, and all American waters pertaining thereto.' Laws 1887-88, p. 175, c. 93. The act contained a penal clause, and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herriott v. City of Seattle
...equally to all of those within the class, the legislation is within the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Ames, 47 Wash. 328, 92 P. 137 (1907); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 44 S.Ct. 15, 68 L.Ed. 255 (1923); Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wash.2d 425, 353 P.2d 941 (1960), cert......
-
State v. Rose
...clause. Instead, the savings statute applies to preserve this pending prosecution, as that statute has long done. E.g., State v. Ames, 47 Wash. 328, 332, 92 P. 137 (1907) (piloting without license prosecution still valid despite repeal of crime during appeal); State v. Walker, 7 Wash.App. 8......
-
State ex rel. Foss Co., Inc. v. Kelly
...for it cannot be supposed uniformity was required, when it must have been known to be impracticable.' This court in State v. Ames, 47 Wash. 328, 92 P. 137, recognized the right of the state to legislate on the of pilotage and gave the reason as being that Congress had not attempted to regul......
-
State v. Rheaume
...v. Gray (Md.) supra. Statutes requiring an applicant for a pilot's license to be an American citizen and a legal voter (State v. Ames, 47 Wash. 328, 92 Pac. 137), or restricting the vending of lightning rods to sales by agents resident in the state (State v. Stevens [N. H.] supra), are for ......