Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/145

 JOSLYN V. NICKRRSON. 137 �sels. By Rev. St. title 52, § 4399, every vessel propelled iu whole or in part by steam is a steam vessel within the mean- ing of that title. By section 4438 the inspectors shall license and classify the masters, chief mates, engineers and pilots of ail steam vessels. This is the law; and its practical con- struction by the persons interested has always been general, and I see not how any other could be given. �It is to be added that there was no compulsory pilotage under the act of congress of 1853; and, therefore, the con- struction contended for deprives that statute of ail force. �2. A second reply made by the libellant to the asserted exemption is that the statute of Massachusetts, when speak- ing of a licensed pilot, must be taken to mean one who is licensed to do the very act of pilotage which the local pilot offers to perform; and that, by the decision in Steainshlp Co. v.Jolife,2 Wall. 450, a pilot suchas wasonboard the "United States" is only licensed for the high seas. There is mucli force in this argument. The answer to it is substantially the same which was given to the first point. Under the act of 1852, as construed, pilots were in reality licensed for the high seas; but they were the only pilots in existence to whom the Massachusetts act could apply. Therefore, if that act did not refer to pilots of this sort, it was without meaning and exempted no one. Whatever may have been the view of the legislature as to the scope of the act of congress of 1852, it was to meet that act, and to exempt such pilots as wore licensed in accordance with its provisions, that clause 15 was framed. While, therefore, it is entirely competent for the legislature of the state to subject this class of foreign-going American merchaut ships to this charge, I am of opinion that they have not as yet seen fit to do so, when a pilot licensed by the inspectors of the United States for the voyage actually performed is on board and lias charge of the navi- gation. �For these reasons the decree of the district court ia affirmed. ��� �