KNIGHT, United States Consul to P. S.—I inclose press-copies of all the documents connected with this correspondence, thinking they may be of service. F. P. K, October 6, 1874

Mr. Knight to Mr. Rennell.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 19, of the 4th instant, (Sunday.)

In general reply now to your dispatches Nos. 18, 19, it is with regret, all things considered, that I am forced to write you that, in the case of D. J. Haliday, an American citizen and a licensed pilot, on appeal, before me, his consul, against your decision canceling his license, as given in your letter No. 17, of the 30th ultimo, addressed to the manager of the pilot company at this port, I not only cannot, in the light of justice, agree with your views as to the necessity of withdrawing the appellant’s license, but that I take exceptions to your unprecedentedly mischievous interpretation of your duty and rights (unmistakably implied in your communications Nos. 17, 18, 19) in the case, which are so plainly and unqualifiedly set forth in clauses 1 and 2 of General Regulations VII of pilotage regulations, approved, with the inspector-general of customs, by the United States minister on the 3d of March, 1889, and forwarded hither for your guidance and my own as well.

The case of the appellant stands at this consulate, the place only, I hold, where his moral character is to be correctly measured, thus: The appellant has held a license as a pilot since the 22d of September, 1864, during which long interval, be it noted, not one single complaint of any kind has, to my knowledge, ever been laid against him as a pilot. He is popular with shipmasters of all nations; he is skillful as a pilot, and has been exceedingly fortunate with shipping.

Against this good professional character it may be said that he is a man who, judging by past experience, at intervals may be influenced by drink, and may commit some act of violence. During the ten years that the appellant has resided at this port, I have had three charges of assault against him. Others of the pilot-body have been no less fortunate.

The appellant’s first trouble commenced nine years ago. Then again in 1870 he was brought up for some squabble. Finally, after a long interval of unexceptional good conduct, on the 16th ultimo, I regret to say, Haliday appeared in the court of this consulate to answer a charge of assault with violence on a native woman with whom he lived. Jealousy and excitement from drink was the plea, but it being proved that he had beaten the woman, I adjudged that he should be sent to jail for a fortnight and pay heavy costs of court.

All this is very much against the appellant, as a man; but I consider it much in his favor that, during his imprisonment, he showed great signs of sorrow and shame, and was most anxious to make any and all amends to the woman that I might dictate. The end was, that he parted from the woman, paid her $1,000 in money, and her passage to her home; which are acts of reparation only years of good conduct and thrift enabled him to perform. Thus, for this intemperate violence then, the appellant has suffered a loss, in all, of about $1,300 and a fortnight’s imprisonment.

There are grades of crimes and grades of punishment for them.

Haliday is a good pilot, but on three occasions during ten years he has been drunk and violent; otherwise he is, beyond question, one of the most orderly and respectable of the pilot company.

All the circumstances considered, I say the appellant has suffered enough, and that to wish to cancel his license, cause him a further pecuniary loss of nearly $800 to $1,000 by a forced sale of his pilot property, take away an annual means of living, (for although Haliday is interested in a shop, he is no shop-keeper and intends selling out his interest,) is simply an error of judgment on your part, and if carried out would be an act of persecution, which, after considerable thought, I decline to be a party to.

But there are other considerations in this case which weigh with me.

Knowing, as I do, that the commissioner directs your acts and dictates your letters in this matter, I note the fact that your letters Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19 were witten at his instance, with the knowledge of my views, as given herein, expressed to him at great length and with earnest consideration during two personal interviews, one before the trial of Haliday, and on another occasion the day before his release. The interview referred to before the trial was of my seeking, in consequence of some information subsequently given in an affidavit before me, copy of which affidavit, as it concerns yourself, I inclose herewith. I then reasoned at length with the commissioner that you had obviously at the outset been guilty in this case of a singular excess of authority.

The commissioner told me that you denied some portions of the affidavit statement, and as a point of veracity is not for a moment to be thought of with your worthy self, there is a mistake of memory somewhere, for Richards is not an unreliable man. However, I then said that, with your experience, you did very wrong to meddle with Haliday’s movements previous to his trial when he was in charge of this consular court—even to control his license. At the second personal interview, when the commissioner was good enough to come to my house, we discussed the 2d clause, regulation 7, particularly, and I was firm then of the opinion that if the clause in question was somewhat ambiguous, it was my view that you were called to act under it only when the acts of pilots affected them, as pilots. This is my opinion to-day.

For I am not aware that either yourself or the commissioner of customs possesses majesterial powers in any way, (although I may be wrong;) and by any other view than mine, I do not think the right of appeal would have been provided, probably by the inspector-general of customs at Peking.

Members of a privileged and protected body, (as you call them, although it sounds odd to me,) to some extent, I admit pilots are, but they are necessary to and closely connected with commerce; they have vested rights in their business, and I contend that those rights of property cannot be dissolved by a stroke of the pen—excepting when they fail grossly as pilots—as is sought to be done in your rather summary letters.

Were a pilot convicted of manslaughter, theft, or fraud, or any serious charge in an in way connected with shipping or pilotage matters, I should not, I think, interfere in his behalf as against your ruling.

But your letters Nos. 18, 19 I must regard as unfortunate, for I respectfully submit that they do imply an attempt to question the appellate jurisdiction of the consul in the case, which causes me quite as much surprise as did the French minister’s letter, (rê pilots,) when shown to the commissioner.

From all the above you will gather—

• That I cannot approve of withdrawing and canceling the appellant’s license. I would return it to him with a caution (if necessary) indorsed thereon.
• That I think, in a case where a pilot’s license is to be really canceled, some regular form of procedure should take place at your office, and if your opinion is not unshaken, your decision should be given in writing, and the delinquent fairly informed of his right of appeal, under certain regulations.
• That lam firmly convinced as to the intention of the framers of clauses 1 and 2 of regulation 7 of the pilotage regulations as to the right of this consulate that the appelate jurisdiction of the consul, under the clause in question, is as absolute as any of his lawful judgments.

And I think it is a wise provision; for you will be so good as to pardon my adding that, in the judgments of both yourself and the commissioner as well, I think you are inclined to be a little severe.

In the above opinions I feel sustained by my reading of several authorities on the laws of pilots, also by some valuable notes collected by Sir Wm. Mitchell. Pilot boards are not (as a rule) concerned with civil offenses.

I am fully alive to your official position with the pilots, of the interest you take in the pilotage service, and I am not forgetful of my duty to sustain you in every way, when called upon, in my power.

From sentiments of respect to you, sir, I have made this reply as full as possible, that you may see that I (partially) overrule your judgment not without consideration.

It having been represented to me, and being within my own knowledge and experience, that at the close of the season twelve pilots are actually necessary for the benefit and safety of the shipping, I decide that Licensed-pilot D. J. Haliday shall receive back his license from your office, to hold the same provisionally until the end of the season; its renewal in March next to rest on the decision of the United States minister at Peking, who doubtless will confer with the inspector-general of customs.

This action on my part will, it is my hope, meet with the approbation of our respective chiefs.

I will ask you to be so good as to make known my decision (as with respect I shall send lira to you) to Pilot Haliday, the appellant.

And I remain, sir, your obedient servant,