limits of pilot law. Therefore the controlling departments of the navy and the merchant marine were both represented on the committee.

In 1862 we see the new rules framed by a committee of naval officers, Trinity Brethren, and members of the board of trade. Again by reference we find that in 1854 the British merchant marine was placed under the directions of the board of trade, the pilots remaining under the Trinity House. Thus, again, the whole marine was represented.

The new rules having been made statutory were submitted for approval to foreign governments, and it was stated that all foreign ships who were guided by these rules should be treated as British ships in British courts of law. All the principal nations of the world approved and legalized these laws, and immediately the laws or rules changed their character. From being municipal laws, as enacted by Great Britain alone, they became, by the force of the common consent of commercial nations, an integral part of the law of the sea. It is not out of place to quote here an extract from an opinion on this self-same subject delivered by Mr. Justice Strong in the Supreme Court of the United States 14 Wall., 188).

When we find such rules of navigation accepted as obligatory rules by more than thirty of the principal commercial states of the world, including almost all which have any shipping on the Atlantic Ocean, we are constrained to regard them as in part at least, and so far as relates to these vessels, the laws of the sea. Undoubtedly no single nation can change the law of the sea. The law is of universal obligation, and no statute of one or two nations can create obligations for the world. Like the laws of nations it rests upon the common consent of civilized communities.

It is stated that in 1877 the British Parliament authorized an examination of these laws, and the result of this examination was the compilation of a revised set of laws which have been made statutory in Great Britain. Let us examine the mode of procedure in the light of the Supreme Court decision above quoted.

The proclamation declaring these revised rules statutory tells the whole story, and the following extracts are sufficient:

#

And whereas the admiralty and board of trade have jointly recommended to Her Majesty that the regulations contained in the order in council shall be annulled, and that there shall be substituted the new regulations; and, whereas, it has been made to appear to Her Majesty that the governments of the several foreign countries mentioned are respectively willing that the regulashall apply to ships of the said countries, respectively, whether within

tions

#

#

British jurisdiction or not; now, therefore.

Here we see a distinct acknowledgment of the necessity of consulting foreign nations before changing rules which Great Britain itself had made. This proclamation declaring the new rules statutory was not made until the approval of sixteen of the principal commercial nations of the world had been obtained. Nothing could be more plainly implied. The rules of 1862 were first made statutory, and then submitted to foreign governments. Their successors were first submitted to foreign governments, and after their approval had been obtained, they were made statutory.

I now turn to the consideration of the actions of the United States Government with regard to rules for preventing collisions.

In

In 1838, Congress enacted a statute making it obligatory for all steamers to carry one or more signal lights at night. In 1842, the United States Navy Department adopted for the guidance of naval vessels the British steering and light rules which had been enacted that year. 1849, Congress enacted a statute obliging all merchant vessels navigating the Northern and Western lakes to carry the lights prescribed by the Navy Department order above mentioned.

In 1852, Congress authorized the appointment of nine supervising inspectors, amongst whose duties it was specified

That it shall be the duty of the supervising inspectors to establish such rules and regulations, to be observed by all such vessels (steamers navigating rivers only), in passing each other, as they shall from time to time deem necessary for safety.

In 1863 Congress enacted a law establishing "regulations for preventing collisions on the water," which regulations were in conformity with those submitted by the British Government for its approval. In that same year these regulations were established in conformity with the act of Congress as the guiding rules for naval vessels by General Order No. 34, issued by the Secretary of the Navy, which order has never been annulled or modified.

In 1865 the statutes with regard to supervising inspectors were so amended as to empower them to make steering and light regulations for all American vessels.

In 1874 the United States Statutes at Large were revised and compiled under the title of "The Revised Statutes of the United States." In this compilation the regulations for preventing collisions were amended and appeared as section 4233.

In 1878 the British Government submitted for the approval of the United States a set of amended regulations for preventing collisions at sea. These regulations were approved by the Treasury Department for the United States Government, and the British Government was notified of this approval, and partially in consequence of this approval the British Government made them statutory.

In 1879, a bill was submitted to the consideration of the committee on Commerce of Congress proposing certain amendments to section 4233 of the Revised Statutes. This bill is still under the consideration of the committees.

These having been the actions of the United States Government, it remains to examine the effects produced by them. Previous to the year 1863, all these actions were strictly within the province of municipal law. In that year Great Britain submitted her rules with the avowed intention of attempting to establish an international maritime law. (See appendix B.) These rules were approved by the Navy Department for the government, and in accordance with its suggestions, the rules, so amended as to extend their force to United States inland waters, were made statutory. In suggesting these amendments directly to Congress, the examining officers encroached upon the specific duties of the supervising inspectors, who, as shown above, made regulations for inland waters. They furthermore failed to comprehend the strictly international signification of the rules in recommending them for inland waters, although it was plainly evident that in certain places local regulations might be necessary which would interfere, if not conflict, with the rules for the sea. This point was even made by the British Government in subsequent correspondence. (See appendix F.) No notice, however, was taken of it, and the British Government, in a circular shortly afterward issued to all governments, naming those powers who had approved the regulations, mentions the United States in the list, as follows:

United States sea-going ships.

United States inland waters.

Our government being the only one in which inland waters are mentioned. In 1865 the Board of Supervising Inspectors, in conformity with the powers delegated to it by Congress, made certain pilot rules for lake and seaboard, and "pilot rules for Western rivers." The neces

sity for these rules is unquestionable, and in framing them it was necessary to depart in many particulars from the precepts of the general rules which had become international. The making of such rules did not imply any violation of the international rules, but no information of their enactment was given to foreign countries. Thus an act of discourtesy to all nations was done by the United States in leaving them to believe that the general rules applied still to our inland waters. Although naval vessels are constantly patrolling our lakes, seaboard, and Western rivers, no notification of the enactment of these rules appears to have ever been given to the Navy Department. This notification was a matter of prime necessity, as since naval vessels are by statute exempted from the control of such municipal laws, the Navy Department should have been notified in order that proper and conforming regulations could be issued for its guidance.

In 1874 the regulations were inserted as section 4233 of the Revised Statutes, the wording having been amended. As long as the intent of the international rules remained unchanged and intact, the right to amend the wording was indisputable. But whatever power the government may possess, it had not the right to in any way impair the signification of the international rules (vide Supreme Court opinion above quoted). The wording of section 4233 is changed in many places. Omitting all changes that do not modify the intent, attention is called to the following points. In the second clause of the first article or rule the following difference of reading occurs:

International rule: "And every steamship which is under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be considered a ship under steam.”

Statute rule: "And every steam-vessel, which is under steam, whether under sail or not, shall be considered a steam-vessel."

A

By this change, it is claimed that the sense of the law is mutilated if not perverted; for, by referring to the opening words of rules 18 and 19 we find, "If two vessels under steam are "The question arises, what constitutes a vessel under steam? This point is specifically answered in the international rule. It is not even referred to in the Statute, and by the latter the claim may be set up that a vessel under steam and sail is not to be considered a vessel under steam. To landsmen this may appear a quibble, but it is by no means the case. steam-vessel, having the wind in her favor, may set all her sails and use only so much of her steam power as will overcome the resistance of the propeller to the water, in order to economize fuel. In this condition she is under steam and sail, but her steam power is not sufficient to control her movements. This is a condition in which naval vessels of all nations are very commonly placed, and merchant-vessels frequently; and it is seen at a glance that in case of collision this question would certainly arise, and could only be decided by referring to the intent of the statute as expressed in the original rule.

It is objected to the statutory reading that it is in no sense a definition, as it reduces itself to defining a steam-vessel as being a steam-vessel when under steam.

Article 20 of the international rules reads as follows:

Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, or the owner or master or crew reof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals, or of any neget to keep a proper lookout or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen or by the special circumstances of the case. This article is of such importance that its precepts are found repeatedly quoted in admiralty opinions, yet it is entirely omitted from the statutes.

Rule 14 of the Revised Statutes reads as follows:

The exhibition of any light on board of a vessel of war of the United States may be suspended whenever in the opinion of the Secretary of the Navy the commander in chief of a squadron, or the commander of a vessel acting singly, the special circumistances of the service may require it.

This is a complete precept affecting all the international light rules, but it is neither expressed nor implied in the original rules, nor does it appear in the latest authorized Regulations of the Navy, although of application to naval vessels only. More than this, the rule itself is in direct violation of the principles of international law.

No matter what rights naval vessels may claim during war time within the jurisdiction of the United States, they cannot jeopardize neutral life and property on the high seas. A defense founded on this rule in any foreign court or in courts of arbitration would not stand an instant. The rules being originally intended to form an integral part of international maritime law, and as such having received the approval of the United States in common with the rest of the commercial world, it became not only a point of national honor, but one of necessity, in order to guard them against mischievous legislation, that they should of themselves form a single section of the statutes, from which all strictly municipal regulations should have been carefully excluded.

By reference to section 4233, it will be found that Rules VI, VII, and XII are regulations neither mentioned nor contemplated in the original rules. They are now and by their nature must always be municipal regulations, and however absolute the necessity for their existence may be, they are out of place in the midst of international rules. The rules for preventing collisions having become de facto an integral part of international maritime law before the Revised Statutes were compiled, the above-mentioned examples clearly show that in approving section 4233 the United States Government did violence to the laws of the sea.

It has been stated that in 1878 the British Government submitted revised rules for the approval of the United States, and that the approval was given by the Treasury Department for the government. In so far as the merchant marine was concerned, this approval was perfectly regular, provided that such approval originated with the Board of Supervising Inspectors, in whom lies the power delegated by Congress to make regulations of this nature for the merchant marine.

That the approval did so originate is doubted.

There was no authority, however, for the Treasury Department to examine and approve these rules for the Navy. That an examination by the Navy Department was necessary is plainly evident from the fact that one of the new rules affects naval vessels especially. Leaving this special case, however, out of consideration, the fact remains that we have squadrons of naval vessels constantly cruising on the high seas and in foreign waters, which must be guided by the law of the sea; therefore the controlling authority of these vessels should certainly be consulted with regard to amendments in the law which affect these vessels. Our manner of legislation upon this subject being thus proved faulty and injurious, the questions arise, To whom is the fault attributable? And how may it be remedied? The responsibility lies directly with Congress, but in a matter of this kind Congress alone is not competent to judge of the technicalities, and must call to its assistance authorities on marine affairs. The fault originally must be placed at the doors of the Navy Department, whose officers, in 1863, having in their possession a knowledge of the methods adopted by Great Britain in framing the rules, approved of them arbitrarily for both the Navy and merchant marine.

Had it not been during a time of war, when our sea-going commerce was almost totally destroyed, and when all such matters were naturally referred to the Navy Department, this general approval would not have escaped protest by the Treasury Department, and proper means for approving the rules would have been used.

Since amended rules have now been approved and legislated upon by fifteen of the principal maritime nations of the world, the pres ent seems to be the proper time to remedy former faults and to aid instead of obstruct the development of international law.

In seeking the remedy it is not out of place to refer to the actions of the British Parliament under similar circumstances. We find that invariably when it became necessary to legislate upon collision rules committees were formed as parliamentary advisers, in which the whole British marine was represented. First it was the British admiralty alone; then the admiralty and Trinity House; then the admiralty, the Trinity House, and the board of trade; and finally, when the rules become international, the marine authorities of the entire commercial world.

In the United States we have no national board of trade or national pilot control. The Board of Supervising Inspectors, in a manner, possess the authority in regard to steering and light rules that is vested in Great Britain in the board of trade and Trinity House. It would seem that in appointing an advisory board, to properly examine the amended rules, a difficulty would arise in providing a fair and competent representation for the merchant marine, for the reason that although the power to make regulations with regard to lights and pilotage is vested in the Board of Supervising Inspectors, the members of that board are not necessarily experts in general maritime affairs. The special function of the members of this board is the examination of marine boilers; and although the general control of pilotage matters is in their hands, the more immediate practical control is vested in local pilot commissioners.

The approval of the new rules by the Treasury Department having been improper, I would respectfully suggest that a re-examination of them be ordered by Congress, to be made by a committee representing the whole marine. A committee composed of the following members would, I think, meet the requirements:

Two naval officers: To represent the Navy.

Two supervising inspectors: To represent the merchant marine.

One revenue officer: To represent the revenue marine and act as adviser to the inspectors.

One pilot commissioner: Chosen from among the pilot commissioners of one of our large seaports, to represent pilot interests, and act as adviser to the inspectors.

One naval officer: To represent the interests of international maritime Law exclusively.

In this manner there would be three members chosen directly from the Navy Department, three from the Treasury Department, and one from a local control; all branches of marine interest would be properly represented, and matters of international import would be properly guarded.

I respectfully call attention to the fact that the United States GovernBent is already committed to an approval of the new rules, and, as they have at this time become a part of international law, the government is bound to act in accordance with all the precepts therein stated. The fanctions of the examining board would be confined to making such