protection, but insisted that in this case they had done more since they had furnished protection after the manner and pleasure of the defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court, 6 Law and Labor 252. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor and two other lord justices read opinions favoring dismissal of the appeal. Two of the lords read opinions favoring allowance of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Holding that an agreement to pay for special police protection, that is, protection by special service not deemed necessary from the standpoint of the police for the fulfillment of their duty to protect, is not invalid as opposed to public policy. The Lord Chancellor said: "But it has always been recognized that, where individuals desire that service of a special kind which, though not within the obligations of a police authority, can most effectively be rendered by them, should be performed by members of the police force, the police authorities may (to use an expression which is found in the Police Pensions Act, 1890) 'lend' the services of constables for that purpose in consideration of payment. Instances are the lending of constables on the occasions of large gatherings in and outside private premises, as on the occasions of weddings, athletic or boxing contests or race meetings, and the provision of constables at large railway stations. Of course no such lending could possibly take place if the constables were required elsewhere for the preservation of order; but (as Bankes L. J. pointed out) an effective police force requires a margin of reserve strength in order to deal with emergencies, and to employ that margin of reserve, when not otherwise required, on special police service for payment is to the advantage both of the persons utilizing their services and of the public who are thereby relieved from some part of the police charges. Atkin L. J. put the contrary view in the form of a dilemma when he said: 'Either they were performing this public duty in giving the protection asked for, in which case I think they cannot charge, think they cannot charge, or, which no one suggests, they were at the request of an individual doing something which it was not their duty to do, in which case it seems to me both public policy and s.10 of the County Police Act, 1839, make the contract illegal and void.' With great respect to the learned Lord Justice I am disposed to think that this reasoning rests on an ambiguous use of the word 'duty.' There may be services rendered by the police which, although not within the scope of their absolute obligations to the public, may yet fall within their powers, and in such cases public policy does not forbid their performance." As to whether the contract in this particular case was valid or not depended on whether the police might in good faith decide that the garrison demanded by the defendants was unnecessary for the full measure of protection which the police were in duty bound to render. Upon this point the Lord Chancellor said: "If in the judgment of the police authorities, formed reasonably and in good faith, the garrison was necessary for the protection of life and property, then they would be to exact a payment for the performance of were not entitled to make a charge for it, for that a duty which they clearly owed to the appellants and their servants; but if they thought the garrison a superfluity and only acceded to Mr. James' request they were entitled to treat the garrison duty as special with a view to meeting his wishes, then in my opinion duty and to charge for it." After referring to the qualifications of the original superintendent of police, Colonel Smith, the Lord Chancellor continued: "Upon this point Sir John Simon in his powerful argument for the appellants contended that the true inference to be drawn from the evidence was that the police authority, having a discretion to elect between protecting the collieries (which admittedly required protection in some form) by means of the 'mobile body' to which Colonel Smith referred or by means of a garrison, chose the latter alternative in consideration of payment, and that they could not so (as he put it) sell their discretion. Upon the evidence, I do not think that they did anything of the kind. Colonel Smith said clearly that the police garrison was no part of his scheme of protection and did not help him in his scheme at all; that he had an ample force by which to protect the collieries from outside and was well able to cope with the situation. It does not appear that the provision of the garrison, who were brought in from distant parts of the county, relieved the force on the spot from any of their duties, or that the local force was reduced inconsequence; and I think that the true inference is that the garrison formed an additional and not a substituted or alternative means of protection. "There is another argument to be noticed. It was said that if the police garrison had not been provided the 'safety men' would not have attended to work the pumps and the mines would have been flooded, and from this it is inferred that the garrison was necessary for the protection of the appellants' property. I think that there was evidence to that effect, but it does not appear to me to follow that it was the duty of the police authority to provide the garrison. They were no doubt bound to protect the 'safety men' from violence, but it was not for the safety men to decide the form in which that protection should be given; and if they declined to safeguard the collieries from flooding unless protection was given in a particular form which the police authorities thought unnecessary, it was for the owners of the collieries and not for the police to overcome their reluctance." DISCUSSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Amid the rapidly shifting scenes of industrial and social life of today, uniformity of ideas is neither to be desired nor expected, and the cause of truth will be best served by placing before men of industry any important discussion of industrial relations. It is in this spirit that our association intends to publish information under this title, without advocacy of the ideas therein contained. Development and Operation of Pilot's Associations Pilots' Associations in various parts of the country furnish one of the most encouraging examples of cooperation and self government where the pilots themselves actually own and operate the entire industry. The Monthly Labor Review presents an interesting account of this which is well worthy of review in Law and Labor. In most American ports all vessels, both of domestic and foreign registry, engaged in the foreign trade, must in entering or leaving port be in charge of a licensed pilot of the port. Ships engaged in any kind of domestic trade may avail themselves of such pilotage service, but this is not usually compulsory. The present study covered the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Savannah, New Orleans, Houston, Galveston, San Francisco, Astoria (Oreg.), and Seattle. Through these 11 ports, in 1923, according to reports made by the United States Shipping Board, passed 58.3 per cent of the water-borne foreign commerce of ports handling 100,000 long tons or more and 63.4 per cent of all the water-borne commerce of the United States. All the cities above mentioned have organized pilots' associations except San Francisco, Astoria (Oreg.), and Seattle. Development of Pilots' Associations Early in the history of the shipping industry each pilot worked alone although he often cooperated with several other pilots to the extent of participating with them in the ownership of a pilot boat. Cutthroat competition and unsatisfactory service resulted. For, in order to be the first to greet a ship it was customary for the pilots to cruise out to sea, so that sometimes in their quest of business they went so far out to sea that they missed incoming ships, which were thus put to inconvenience and delay in securing pilot service. Also, this condition meant uncertain earnings, a large sum being earned one month, and little or nothing the next. The pilots themselves were the first to see the disadvantages of this situation and the remedy for it. Thus gradually in one port after another they formed associations through which to handle the pilotage of the port. By the formation of these associations, the previous rivalry and intense competition among the pilots were eliminated and the shipping facilitated because of the better organization of the pilot business. A central, downtown office is maintained through which all business is transacted and to which each pilot must report after bringing in a ship, and on each day thereafter until his turn comes to take another vessel to sea. In place of the many little pilot boats that used to cruise here and there outside of port, there are one or two large steam vessels designed especially to withstand wind and weather. Regular pilotage grounds have been established, usually at the bar. The pilot ship is stationed there so that incoming ships may know where to find it and may rest assured of pilot service into the port. General Characteristics of Pilots' Associations These pilots' associations are unconsciously cooperative. Without, apparently, any idea of so doing, these men have formed what are almost perfect examples of cooperative skilled-labor associations. As regards obligations (contributions to the association's capital, expenses, etc.), labor, voting power, and earnings, all are on an equal footing. Only one criticism can be brought against them from a cooperative standpoint— restriction of membership. Only members are engaged in the pilotage work and only working pilots are members. Regular meetings of all the members are held, usually once a year; special meetings may be called at any time. At all meetings each man has one vote. The officers (usually president, treasurer, and secretary), are elected from among the members. All propertyin pilot boats, tender, supplies, etc.-is owned jointly by the members. In most of the ports the associations are unincorporated, the only exceptions being the New York association, the Savannah Bar Pilots, and the New Orleans River Port Pilots' Association. Duties of the Pilot The work to be done is divided among all the members, the ships being taken out by the men in regular turn. A pilot taking a ship to sea conducts her to a given point outside of the port, where he leaves ner and proceeds in a small boat to a pilot ship. Quarters are provided on the pilot ship for a certain number of men, and the pilot stays aboard, with the men who have preceded him, until one by one they leave to conduct vessels into port, and his turn comes again. Few landsmen appreciate just how interesting, hazardous, and necessary the work of the pilot is, and probably few ships' passengers even suspect the indentity of the man who boards the ship outside the entrance to the harbor, often in storm and at risk of life and limb, to bring her safe into her berth in port. Membership All of the associations studied had in their membership the entire number of licensed pilots in the port, varying in number from 8 in Houston, a comparatively new port, to 87 in New York City. Recruitment of New Members New pilots are nearly everywhere recruited through the apprenticeship system, the number of years of apprenticeship varying from port to port. This period of probation ranges from 6 months for river pilots in New Orleans and 1 year for bar pilots in New Orleans, Houston, and Galveston to 6 years in Baltimore. In nearly all ports, in order to become a licensed pilot, the candidate must also pass a rigid examination as to his knowledge of shoals, soundings, tides, courses, etc., and as to eyesight, hearing, and color blindness. In many ports there are also requirements as to his morals, sobriety, trustworthiness, etc. Generally, also he must give bond, varying from $500 in New York and Philadelphia to $5,000 in Houston and Galveston, for the faithful performance of his duties. Restriction of Membership In some instances a minimum or maximum limit is set either by law or by order of the pilot commissioners as to the number of pilots allowed to operate in a port. In some instances also, the number of pilots is quite frankly restricted by the men themselves. At Philadelphia, when the association was formed in 1896, there were 95 pilots working in and out of the port, all of whom became members of the association; at present there are only 58 members, due to the policy of the association itself. Likewise, at Savannah, where the association already contains the full number (20) allowed by the State law, there are no apprentices in training, and it is the avowed policy of the association to reduce the present number by leaving unfilled any vacancies that may occur. One master pilot explains the reasons for this policy as follows: "The association is top-heavy. We don't need so many members. It isn't that the business of the port is decreasing. It isn't; it increases from year to year. But along with the increase in shipping there has been a more than compensating increase in the carrying capacity of the ships, so that the increased volume of business is now carried in fewer ships than before." Fewer pilots are therefore necessary. The very nature of the work makes some restriction of membership necessary, since, unlike most business, volume of business done is entirely beyond control of the association. The pilots handle the ships that arrive, but are powerless to increase their number. Retirement of Superannuated Members In nearly all instances the associations make provisions for their old or disabled members, the Texas associations being the only exceptions to this rule. The Savannah, New Orleans, and Boston associations are now caring for 3, the Philadelphia association for 8, the river pilots' association at New Orleans for 4, and the New York pilots for 15. The amount of the monthly pension granted to retired members ranges from about $33 ($400 a year) in Boston to $125 in New York City, and to two-thirds pay (about $165) in Savannah. (The Boston pilots also provide pensions of $480 a year for widows of members.) In Philadelphia and New Orleans there is no age limit for retirement, in Savannah pilots retire from active service at 65 years of age, and at New York retirement is optional at 65 and compulsory at 70. In the Texas associations, which do not pension their old members, some provision is made for disablement from sickness or injury. The Galveston association provides that any member disabled in the discharge of duties by the breaking of a limb shall receive his full share of the earnings of the association for not to exceed four months. In case of sickness he receives his share of the earnings for not to exceed 30 days in any calendar year. In Houston a member incapacitated by age or disablement may be carried by the association for one year. Capital and Property Considerable capital is required, since boats filling the requirements as to construction and quarters of pilot boats are expensive. $50,000 expenditure for a steam pilot boat is common. One of the boats owned by the New York association cost $90,000 in 1897, and could be very much more expensive today. The associations at Baltimore and Savannah each own one steam pilot boat, the Galveston association owns one and is building another, the Philadelphia and Boston associations own two each, the New York association owns two large steam pilot boats and one steam boat used as an auxiliary boat, while the New Orleans branch pilots own six large boats and two small ones. Two of the associations, both of 30 years' standing, are now worth $200,000 and $275,000 respectively. The pilots' associations are capital-stock associations, each member subscribing for his share of stock. Each apprentice, also, upon receiving his license as a branch pilot, joins the association and takes a share of stock, the value of which varies from $2,000 in Boston to $10,000 in the branch pilots' association at New Orleans. It is worthy of note that none except members are allowed to hold stock in the associations. Some asso ciations go to great pains to assure that no stock shall be held by non-members. At Savannah a retired member may hold his share until his death, at which time it must be sold back to the association. In all cases, the shares are bought back by the association at their par value. Here again the pilots are unconsciously observing the cooperative tenet that there must be no speculative value put upon cooperative stock, but it must always remain at par. Fees for Pilot Service Pilots do not, in most cases, set their own fees. In practically all ports pilotage is regarded as a public service, and, as such, is subject to public control and regulation of rates. Fees of pilots are usually fixed, either by statute or by the pilotage commission of the port or State, on the basis of the draft of the vessel to be handled or the net registered tonnage or both. Earnings of Pilots In every association, all earnings of individual pilots are turned in to the association, which pays all the expenses of operation. These expenses include office expenses, supplies, and upkeep of boats, the percentage of earnings that must be paid over to the pilotage commission, any sums set aside for depreciation, pensions of retired members, etc. The overhead expense in the case of some of the larger ports where more than one pilot boat is maintained is considerable, in one instance running as high as $150,000 per year. The remainder is then divided equally each month among the working pilots in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Houston. In Boston, New York, New Orleans, and Galveston the earnings are pro rated among the men according to the number of days worked, a man being considered as on duty and working every day that he reports to the central office, even though he is not actually engaged in handling a boat. Digest of Union Unemployment Insurance-Ten Groups Covered by Agreements (Reprint Bloomfield's "Industrial Relations" Vol. XIX, p. 2266). According to summaries on the subject in the current labor press about 134,000 workers in the United States are protected in part against unemployment, Industry Clothing (men's) Clothing (men's) Clothing (women's) Clothing (women's) Hats and Caps (cloth) by unemployment insurance set up between trade unions and employers. Location Employers Funds The Cleveland women's clothing industry and the wall paper industry provide for a guaranteed period of employment with benefits to cover a portion of the normal earnings if employment falls short of the guaranteed period. The insurance fund is maintained solely by the employers as is the case in the hat and cap industry. Joint Funds Where there are joint contributions from workers Ten groups are covered as follows: Union Amal. Clothing Workers of Amer. Amal. Lace Operatives of Amer. Un. Cloth Hat & Cap Makers of Amer. Un. Cloth Hat & Cap Makers of Amer. Un. Cloth Hat & Cap Makers of Amer. Un. Cloth Hat & Cap Makers of Amer. Un. Wall Paper Crafts of No. Amer. and employers, the shares of the two parties are equal, with the exception of the women's clothing industry in New York where the employers have agreed to pay a sum equal to two per cent of their weekly payrolls, whereas the employees pay only one per cent of their weekly earnings. An employment exchange of the union exists in the men's clothing industry in Chicago and will be started in the men's and women's clothing industries in New York. |