Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/690

 678 federal ebpobteb. �The Glaeamara. {District Court, D. Oreyon. Fe'oruary 28, 1882.) �1. Tehdbr ov Pilot Beevicb. �Semble that a tender of pilot service by a river pilot, to a vegsel bound on a voyage to Portland, is not valid if made below Astoria, and before the vessel has reached the pilot-ground of such pilot. �2. Ambndment of Btatute. �Semble that section 1 of the act of December 20, 1865, (Sess. Lawg, p. 33 ; Or. Laws, p. 707, } 12,) giving half pilotage for a tender of pilot service to a vessel navigating the Columbia or Wallamet rivera above Astoria, was passed in con- travention of section 22 of article 4 of the constitution of the state, and is therefore void ; but if considered valid, then section 1 of the act of October 25, 1870, (Sess. Laws, p. 51 ; Or. Laws, p. 710, } 27,) declaring that such vessel. when " towed by a tug or steamer," should not be required " to take a pilot or pay half pilotage," is also valid, and therefore a pilot is not entitled to recover half pilotage for a tender and refusai of pilot service. �Rufus Mallory, for libellant. �William II. Effinger, for respondent. �Dbady, D. J. This suit is brought by the libellant, W. A. Betts, a river pilot, to recover the sum of |3e as half pilotage for a tender of services as such pilot to the bark Glaramara. �The libel alleges that on September 18, 1881, the Glaramara, a for- eign ship of 800 tons burden, was in the Columbia river below Astoria, bound on a voyage to Portland, when the libellant, a duly-qualified and licensed pilot for the Columbia and Wallamet rivers above Astoria, duly offered his services to the master of said vessel to pilot her to Portland, which offered was refused, although said vessel had no river pilot on board, nor had she then been spoken by any one ; and that said vessel made the voyage to Portland and arrived here about six days thereafter. �The master, Robert Morton, on behalf of the owners and claimants, George Nelson & Sons, White Haven, England, excepts to the libel because it does not appear therefrom that the libellant is entitled to have any sum as pilotage from said bark. The exception does not state specifieally, as it ought, wherein the libel is defective, but upon the argument it was contended (1) that the tender of services being made below Astoria, off the libellant's pilot-ground, was there- fore insufEcient and of no effect; and (2) that it does not appear whether said voyage of said vessel to this port was made under sall or in tow. ��� �