The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

September, 1914 tion to any person other than his superiors in the steamboat inspection service. Any inspector or super- vising inspector violating this provision shall be sub- ject to dismissal from the service. "Section 4449: That if any licensed officer shall, to the hindrance of commerce, wrongfully or unrea- sonably refuse to perform his official duties after hav- ing signed articles, or while employed on any vessel as authorized by the terms of his certificate of license, or if any pilot or engineer shall refuse to admit into the pilot house or engine room any person whom the master or owner of the vessel may desire to place there for the purpose of learning the profession, his license shall be revoked or suspended upon the same proceedings as are provided in other cases of revoca- tion or suspension of such license." This measure upon casual survey would seem to be entirely innocuous, but upon analysis it proves to be a most pernicious piece of attempted legislation. Section 4448 appears to have been put in merely for the purpose of raising a little dust and concealing the nigger in the wood pile. The licensed officers are expected to assist the inspectors of hulls and machinery in their examina- tion of steam vessels and there is no owner that is not eager to have them do so. The Hardy bill simply re-enacts that, but adds the provision that any local inspector or supervising inspector who shall divulge the name of the licensed officer furnishing such information to other than a superior officer shall be subject to dismissal from the service. There is no particular occasion for the enactment of such a provision nor is there any special objection to its enactment except that it introduces the element of star chamber proceedings. Owners as a body are desirous of keeping their vessels in ship-shape fashion and undoubtedly both captains and chief engineers would welcome any suggestion to this end from the officers beneath them. The amendment is really with- out meaning except that it might offer a disgruntled mate or second engineer opportunity for making trouble for the captain or chief engineer; but it effects no self-respecting man. The fuss that is raised in Section 4448 is designed really to permit the amendment to section 4449 to €scape scrutiny. The present Section 4449 provides as follows: | : "If any licensed officer shall, to the hindrance of commerce, wrongfully or unreasonably refuse to serve in his official capacity on any vessel as author- ized by the terms of his certificate of license, or shall fail to deliver to the applicant for such service at the time of such refusal, if the same should be demanded, ° a statement in writing assigning good and sufficient Teasons therefor, or if any pilot or engineer shall tefuse to admit into the pilot house or engine room any person who the master or owner of the vessel May desire to place there for the purpose of learning the profession, his license shall be revoked or sus- pended upon the same proceedings as are provided in THE MARINE REVIEW 345 other cases of revocation licenses." It will be noted that this section is amended to read as follows: "If any licensed officer to the hindrance of com- merce wrongfully or unreasonably refuse to perform his official duties after having signed articles, or while employed on any vessel as authorized by the terms of his certificate of license, etc.' The Italics are ours. Now what can be the purpose of this amendment? It actually takes away government control of the licensed officer by the steamboat inspection service until the officer has entered private employment or, in other words, signed articles. This bill was introduced by Mr. Hardy, of Texas, at the request of Capt. Wm. A. Wescott, of San Francisco, representing the masters, mates and pilots of the Pacific and the Neptune Association of New York. In this connec- tion the following transcript from the hearing on the bill is quite illuminating: Mr. Hardy: Let me see af 1 canystate it so that the lay mind can understand it more readily than or suspension of such 'through your statements; the difference in that regard is that under the present law any licensed officer can be conscripted on any vessel on demand or else forfeit his license; that is the present law, is it not? Capt. Wescott: Yes, that is the whole thing in a nut shell. : ' Mr. Hardy: And this bill proposed to permit the officers the liberty of refusing employment on any vessel without assigning a reason if he sees proper to do so. Capt. Wescott: other free man. Mr. Hardy: But after he has signed articles and becomes an employe, the law, as it stands, would now apply to him. 3 Capt. Wescott: Yes; then we assume the respon- sibility. Mr. Hardy: This bill in that respect simply stops the conscription of a man merely because he has a license. Capt. Wescott: bill. Certainly a very novel use of the word conscription has been made in this connection. The present Section 4449 has been on the statutes since 1866 and during all that time there has not been a single case of con- scription. The law is not so intended and in point of fact it is impossible under the law as it now stands. The present law safeguards the rights of licensed officers in every way. A certain duty is required of them by virtue of their commission from the government as licensed officers and this license may be suspended or revoked if they fail to perform this duty to the hindrance of trade upon request, but this suspension or revocation is not imposed until the officer has had a fair trial with the right to appeal from the local board to the supervising inspector of Absolutely so; the same as any That is the only purpose of the