Wells Williams to Seth Williams, October 28, 1874

No. 127. Mr. Williams to Mr. Fish.

Sir: The series of letters (Nos. 1 to 17) now forwarded with this dispatch relates to a controversy which has arisen at New-chwang respecting 1 he control over an American, engaged by the Chinese licensed-pilot service, who had been punished by the consul for an assault on a Chinese woman, and in consequence of this conduct had been suspended by the harbor-master.

The correspondence furnishes all the facts and arguments, so that I need only recapitulate the principal points, and indicate that on which the conflict has arisen, and the way it has been adjusted.

The pilot, D. J. Haliday, a naturalized American, on his liberation from jail, applied for his license, (inclosure 2,) which the harbor-master declined to return, giving his reason for so doing through the manager of the pilot company, (inclosures 3, 4.) Haliday hereupon appealed against this refusal to the United States consul, (inclosure 5,) who immediately applied to the harbor-master for the charges brought against his employé. Some further correspondence ensued between them respecting the grounds for his authority for this suspension, which the consul thought trenched on his own appellate jurisdiction. (Inclosures 6, 7, 8, 9.) The other contented himself by quoting the clause of the regulation under which he acted.

In his last reply, (No. 10,) Mr. Knight carefully reviews the whole case, and bases his objection to the man’s suspension on the ground that he had done nothing wrong in his capacity of pilot, urging his sacrifices to make the woman comfortable as an extenuation of his delinquencies, and a reason why he should not be further punished by the loss of his situation.

In another dispatch of the next week (inclosure 12) the consul sends me the harbor-master’s acknowledgment of His decision, viz: That Hal: day’s license shall be returned to him for the rest of this season, and its restoration next spring to depend on the approval of the United States minister. This temporary adjustment of the matter he agreed to, (inclosures 13, 14, 15,) and thus the pilot company in the port is maintained at its full efficiency.

In addition to the consular dispatches, I inclose a summary (inclosure 16) of a report from Mr. Man, the commissioner of customs, reviewing Mr. Knight’s argument, and detailing facts about Haliday’s conduct while in the pilot service; he also criticises Mr. Richards’s affidavit, (inclosure 11,) and furnishes these statements to prove that Captain Rennell has neither acted hastily nor unreasonably.

In my reply (inclosure 17) I have endeavored to show that the section in question gives the harbor-master certain powers over the men under him; and that these powers are complementary to those granted him to constitute a pilot service and engage men in it. I tried to show that it is unreasonable to give him powers to engage a man and not allow him the right to dismiss or suspend him. In the present case, I think it has been justly exercised by Captain Rennell, as Haliday’s conduct has been such as to render him a reproach to the company of which he is a member.

Section 2 of regulation 7, whose intent is the subject of this discussion, reads as follows:

“If guilty of any misconduct for which consular punishment has been inflicted, or if proved to have committed any offense against the revenue laws, the individual concerned may be suspended or dismissed by the harbor-master, subject to an appeal to his consul. If a foreigner, the appeal to be lodged within three days.” (See J. Ross Browne’s dispatch, No. 8, December, 1868.)

Mr. Hart, the inspector-general of customs, has talked with me on the bearing of this stipulation, and also favored me with the perusal of a reply to Mr. Man, in which, after going over the bearings and difficulties of this case, he concludes with stating this alternative:

“My own views are opposed to the regulation which limits the number of pilots. I think that the working of the natural laws of demand and supply might fairly be trusted to; and I would limit customs action to seeing that licenses are issued only to duly-qualified men, or retained only by the continuously efficient, thus leaving it to consuls to deal with unlicensed piloting and misconduct of any kind on the part of their nationals. But with the limitation-of-numbers rule in existence, those other parts of the general regulations, which empower the board to refuse admittance to men who cannot produce certificates of character, and the harbor-master to suspend or dismiss a licensed pilot guilty of misconduct for which consular punishment is inflicted, are obviously necessary and complementary. In this case, the harbor-master would do well to dismiss Haliday; and if this action is upheld by the authorities concerned, well and good; if not, we must take steps to rescind the limitation-of-numbers rule.”

It does not, however, seem to be necessary to alter the present regulations as they stand; for, during the six years they have been in operation, very few difficulties have arisen, and the pilot-service is conducted along the coast with efficiency and general satisfaction. Where, as in this case, a companionship of authority necessarily exists, it is not strange that the two powers sometimes come into conflict, but with a disposition to arrange each case as it comes up, the pilot-service has received no hinderance. Disagreements arise more frequently in the smaller ports than in the larger ones, and a good deal depends on the personal character and tact of the harbor-master; and it is an evidence of their general fitness for their duties that so few cases of appeal like the present have come up. A harbor-master is restrained by this right of appeal and its consequent scrutiny into his conduct; and consuls seldom go counter to his action and try to force him to retain an unworthy man. I see many more reasons for retaining than altering the present rules; and I trust you will approve the decision given in this case at Kew-chwang.

I have, &c.,