A consideration of all the factors in a situation calling for the enforcement of this law will, it is believed, show that the penalty imposed, imprisonment for an indefinite number of months, is out of all proportion to the offense committed. The law imposes a fine upon a man who is obviously unable to pay any fine, and instead of offering the alternative of imprisonment for a given period, as is usual in the infliction of most penalties for violation of the law, it fixes no limit to the imprisonment except the payment of a penalty never likely to be paid. Advances of wages to seamen have been prohibited, but allotments of wages in advance to relatives or creditors are permitted under certain restrictions. The seaman who has borrowed money from his employer at the outset of a voyage to pay debts or provide for his relatives certainly can not have that money in his possession, much less double that sum which the law exacts. Wages may be due to him, and the forfeiture of such wages is a proper penalty to inflict for desertion. That forfeiture, with the forfeiture of his effects on board, exhausts the seaman's power to pay.

If a seaman is committed to jail under the section under consideration, there seems no possibility of his release unless some charitable person pays the penalty for him or the attention of the courts is brought to an imprisonment extending far beyond a reasonable time. The law is cruel enough to call for legislative correction. The offense is practically desertion, for which our laws fix a penalty of double any sum advanced (Revised Statutes, 4522), but in such cases the seaman is at liberty and has some chance to earn the money to pay the penalty, while imprisoned, of course, he has none. It is suggested that a fairer penalty for the offense would be the forfeiture of effects on board and all wages that may be due the seaman, and, except in the United States, imprisonment for not to exceed three months, in the discretion of the proper court. An amendment to section 4558, embodying this recommendation, may be found in section 4 of bill H.

Even as thus amended our law will be much more rigid than Great Britain has found it necessary to enact in similar cases. While the law of the United States (Revised Statutes, sec. 4556) requires that the request of the first officer and a majority of the crew shall be necessary to the institution of any inquiry into the seaworthiness of a vessel, the British law (merchant shipping act of 1894, paragraph 463) provides that on the request of five seamen, or if the crew consists of less than twenty, on the request of one-fourth of the crew, a survey of seaworthiness shall be made. Again, the British law does not provide for the imprisonment of seamen in Great Britain for desertion or like offenses, but requires that they shall be arrested and placed aboard ship. The amendment proposed to section 4558 is much more just, humane, and fair to all interests than the present law. It imposes the maximum money penalty which can be collected from the seaman who charges unseaworthiness, obtains a survey, and then refuses to abide by the result of the survey. Even this penalty is insufficient to reimburse the master and owner for the delay and expense of an unnecessary survey; but more should not be demanded where it can not be collected. The penalty of imprisonment for three months or less in the discretion of the court is substantially the imprisonment imposed in foreign ports on British seamen for desertion (merchant shipping act of 1894, paragraph 221) which is fixed at twelve weeks, with forfeiture of wages and effects and liability for suit to recover wages he may earn on his return to the United Kingdom.

ACT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1895.

By section 2 of the act of June 19, 1886, Congress authorized the shipment before shipping commissioners of crews in the coastwise trade and in trade with Canada, Newfoundland, Mexico, and the West Indies. By the act of August 19, 1890, certain sections of the Revised Statutes were made applicable to such shipments. Undoubtedly some of those sections bore with undue severity upon merchant seamen, and at its last session Congress revised the act of August 19, 1890, adding certain other sections of the Revised Statutes to those made applicable to coastwise shipments, and making no longer applicable certain sections, which since 1890 had governed shipments in the coastwise trade before a commissioner. One of the provisions thus repealed, so far as shipment in the coasting trade before a commissioner is concerned, is the seventh item of section 4511, Revised Statutes, which provides that the agreement to be signed by master and seamen shall contain "any regulation as to conduct on board and as to fines, short allowance of provisions, or other lawful punishments for misconduct which may be sanctioned by Congress as proper to be adopted and which the parties agree to adopt." The effect of this repeal has been to strike out of the agreement which masters and seamen have been accustomed to sign in the coasting trade before the commissioner the following words: And the said crew agree to conduct themselves in an orderly, faithful, honest and sober manner, and to be at all times diligent in their respective duties and to be obedient to the lawful commands of said master, or of any person who shall lawfully succeed him, and of their superior officers in everything relating to the vessel, and the stores and cargo thereof, whether on board, in boats or on shore.

Another law, repealed so far as this trade is concerned, is section 4602, Revised Statutes, which reads:

SEC. 4602. Any master of, or any seaman or apprentice belonging to, any merchant vessel, who, by willful breach of duty, or by reason of drunkenness, does any act tending to the immediate loss or destruction of, or serious damage to such vessel, or tending immediately to endanger the life or limb of any person belonging to or on board of such vessel; or who, by willful breach of duty, or by neglect of duty, or by reason of drunkenness, refuses or omits to do any lawful act proper and requisite to be done by him for preserving such vessel from immediate loss, destruction, or serious damage, or for preserving any person belonging to or on board of such ship from immediate danger to life or limb, shall, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than twelve months.

Whatever differences of opinion there may be about the other provisions of the act of February 18, 1895, it is evident that the omission of these two sections from the law governing shipments in the coasting trade before a commissioner is a serious fault which should be corrected. It is argued, and often with reason, that our laws do not place the seaman on a plane with other workingmen, but that argument will not warrant the omission of the two laws under consideration from statutes governing the coasting trade. Regulations for the preservation of discipline and order and for obedience are enforced in all establishments, and they are unquestionably necessary on coasting vessels. So, too, any willful breach of duty or any drunkenness, whether of master or seaman, imperiling a vessel or the lives on board, may as properly be punished by imprisonment in the coasting as in the foreign trade, and ought to be so punished in both. Shipment in the coasting trade before a commissioner is believed to be in the interests of owners, masters, and seamen, and its extension beyond its present proportions is desirable. But it is difficult to find any reason to hope that it can continue even to exist, with its benefits to seamen, unless the two sections in question

are restored to the law.

A bill to effect this result has been incorporated as section 7 of bill L. The sections of the Revised Statutes made applicable to this form of the coasting trade by the act of February 18, 1895, were the first clause of section 4529, and sections 4519, 4530, 4535, 4536, 4542, 4543, 4544, 4545, 4546, 4547, 4549, 4550, 4551, 4552, 4553. The application of these sections to the coasting trade has been beneficial. The sections made no longer applicable are the sixth, seventh, and eighth items of section 4511 and sections 4522, 4524, 4525, 4596, 4597, 4598, 4599, 4601, 4602, 4603, 4604, 4605, 4610, 4612. Should Congress deem it proper to pass the bill to abolish the imprisonment of seamen in the common jails of the United States for breach of civil contract, elsewhere recommended, section 4596 might be restored to the coasting law.

COMPULSORY PILOTAGE OF COASTWISE SAILING VESSELS.

During the last twenty years the world's tonnage of seagoing sailing vessels has been reduced one-third. The number of American sailing vessels has declined from over 28,000 in 1874 to under 17,000 at present. Invention, discovery, and the laws of natural progress are telling against the American sailing vessel so powerfully that a discrimination in statute law against these vessels is peculiarly unjust and has a special title to Congressional consideration and correction. The provisions of sections 4442 and 4444 of the Revised Statutes, which grant to the master of an American steam vessel, but deny to the master of an American sailing vessel, a United States license as pilot, and exempt the steam vessel in the coasting trade from State pilotage charges, which the sailing vessel in the same trade is compelled to pay, are an almost destructive discrimination against sailing vessels. Pilotage is one of the heaviest charges upon navigation, and to exempt one description of American vessels in the coasting trade from that charge while imposing it upon another description of American vessels in the same trade comes close to ruling the sailing vessel out of the business and bestowing it upon steam vessels exclusively. The coasting trade of the United States, with trade on the lakes and northern borders to British possessions and with the West Indies, is practically the only navigation now left open to the great majority of American sailing vessels.

During the fiscal year 1894 only 71 American sailing vessels cleared for Europe, 66 for Asia, 49 for Africa, 205 for Hawaii and Oceanica, 276 for South America, and 41 for other foreign ports, in all 648, which includes the repeated voyages of some vessels. The competition of steam and steel has ruled them out of oversea navigation. On the Atlantic and Gulf Coast there are upward of 12,000 American sailing vessels, of which 4,000 are over 50 tons. Justice to the masters and owners of these vessels suggests that they receive equal treatment under the law with the masters and owners of the 2,000 steam vessels of over 50 tons on the same coast and engaged in competition in the same trade. The discrimination was established by Congress in 1866 and 1871, but since that time many of the States-Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, California, Oregon, and Washington-have removed it, so far as their ports are concerned, by State legislation, exempting sailing vessels in the coasting trade from compulsory pilotage as, by the act of February 28, 1871, Congress exempted steam vessels. The right of Congress to exempt sailing vessels from these charges is not disputed, for it has already been exercised

in the case of steam vessels, and was provided for in the act of August 9, 1789, declaring:

Until further provision is made by Congress all pilots in the bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and ports of the United States shall continue to be regulated in conformity with the existing laws of the States, respectively, wherein such pilots may be, or with such laws as the States may respectively enact for the purpose.

That the employment of State pilots on coastwise sailing vessels is necessary to the safety of navigation is disproved by the fact that the laws of some of the States, still making the discrimination against sailing vessels, provide that pilotage charges may be commuted by the payment annually of a lump sum, based on tonnage, for a State license. A vessel so licensed is not only exempt from the obligation to take on or pay a pilot, but is exempt from any law looking to her safe pilotage. Thus the Maryland law provides:

The master or owner of every vessel sailing under a coasting license over 100 tons shall, before going to sea, apply to the board of pilots for a license to navigate the Chesapeake Bay without a pilot and shall pay to the said board of pilots for such license at the rate of 6 cents per ton and such license shall be good for twelve months from the date thereof.

The Virginia law provides:

Pilots shall appoint agents, one for Norfolk city and one for Richmond, who shall grant licenses to coasting vessels trading in the waters of this Commonwealth, for which licenses such agents shall receive 10 cents per ton for one year; and coasting vessels, having such licenses, shall be free to sail without pilots to or from sea, but all vessels sailing under a coasting license of the burthen of 70 tons or more, coming from or going to sea, not having obtained a license from such agent, shall be subject to the same regulations and pilotage as registered vessels belonging to citizens of the United States.

Obviously this license fee is not for services rendered and is not imposed to secure the safe navigation of the vessel. It is a tax upon commerce, unevenly imposed, because Congress has refused to allow the States to collect it from steam vessels, while permitting its collection from sailing vessels. In fairness it should be collected from both or from neither, and section 4444 should either be repealed or extended to cover the entire coasting trade. It should be extended, as proposed, because the partial adoption of the Federal pilot system, contemplated in one of the earliest acts of Congress, already quoted, has promoted the security of life and property in the coasting trade, while reducing the expenses of that navigation, and by reducing expenses it has reduced freights and the cost of transported goods. The extension of the system would extend the area of benefit. It would secure a uniform rule for pilotage in the coasting trade of the whole country, a trade, to which, as stated, our navigation is now so narrowly confined.

The only objection which may be raised to the recommendation is that its adoption might tend to impair the pilotage system of several of the States, which must be maintained for the benefit and protection of our foreign trade. If the large appropriations, amounting to many millions, for the improvement of harbors are rendering navigation less difficult and dangerous, the duties of pilots must be becoming less arduous, and even the increase of commerce will not call for an increase in the number of State pilots or in the funds needed to maintain that valuable service. The change in pilot service from sail to steam vessels, now in progress at several ports, points to more economical and efficient methods of service. The necessity for State pilots is virtually confined to our foreign trade, and the trade for which it is provided should furnish the means for its maintenance. If the restoration of equality in the matter of pilots and pilotage between sail and steam vessels in

the coasting trade will reduce the receipts of the pilots at any port below the amount required to keep up for foreign trade an efficient service, an increase of pilotage on vessels in the foreign trade can readily be made by any State. Those States which have abolished compulsory pilotage on all coasting vessels have not found it necessary, as a rule, to increase their pilotage charges on vessels in foreign trade. The practical effect of sections 4244 and 4444 of the Revised Statutes, except where the States have extended their scope within their waters, as it is proposed Congress shall extend their scope for all American waters, is to render burdensome and expensive the only navigation left open to the master of an American sailing vessel in order that the masters of foreign steamers may receive the benefit of lower pilotage charges than might otherwise be necessary.

It is proposed that section 4442 of the Revised Statutes be amended by adding a new clause for the issue of a pilot's license to the master or mate of a sailing vessel under the same conditions as those under which a license is now issued to the pilot of a steam vessel. This amendment will subject the masters or mates of sailing vessels, who choose to avail themselves of the proposed law, to the examinations and regulations of the Steamboat-Inspection Service, provided in subsequent provisions of the Revised Statutes This, in itself, will be a gain to safe navigation and a distinct advance in our laws. The proposition involves an extension of the duties of the Steamboat-Inspection Service on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, which can not be closely estimated, until the proposed act, should it commend itself to the lawmaking power, has been in force for a time.

As indicated there are on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts in round numbers 3,000 steam vessels and 12,000 sailing vessels, of which 4,000 are over 50 tons. There are no statistics available to indicate how many of these sailing vessels are usually engaged in the coasting trade with the Atlantic and Gulf States which still retain the pilotage charges under consideration, so an estimate of the probable number of applicants for pilot's licenses for sailing vessels or a conjecture of the places where applications would be made is not practicable.

It is proposed to amend section 4444 of the Revised Statutes by striking out the words "steam vessel" or "steamer" and substituting the word "vessel," so that any coasting vessel having on board a pilot licensed by the United States shall be exempt from State pilotage. It is also provided that any vessel of the United States employed in the coastwise trade being towed into or out of any port of the United States by a steam vessel under command of a pilot licensed for such port under the laws of the United States shall be exempt from pilotage. It is the practice in some ports for sailing vessels or barges to clear under tow, and when the towing tug or steamer is in charge of a United States pilot, who also is responsible for the navigation of the towed vessel, a State pilot is not required, is not employed, and should not be paid.

It is proposed to amend section 4237 of the Revised Statutes by forbidding a State to discriminate against sailing vessels as well as against steam vessels.

Lest it be urged that the tendency of this legislation is in the line of trespass by Congress upon the powers of the States, it may be stated that these propositions are strictly in the line of the regulation of commerce between the States delegated to Congress by the Constitution. The exercise of the power invoked was contemplated by the act of 1789 already quoted, and the power has already been exercised in the case of steam vessels.