Opinion of the Court.

paying half pilotage, for the benevolent and beneficial purpose of relieving distressed and decayed pilots, their widows and children. The act sets out an inducement to avail themselves of their services, but does not compel them to do so." Flanigen v. Washington Ins. Co., (1847) 7 Penn. St. 306, 312. And see The Creole, (1853) 2 Wall. Jr. 485, 516, 517.

So in Williamson v. Price, (1826) 4 Martin (N. S.) 399, the Supreme Court of Louisiana maintained an action for a collision by a vessel "at the time under the care and consequently the control of a licensed pilot." But the statutes of Louisiana, likewise, only provided that "if the master of any ship or vessel coming to the port of New Orleans shall refuse to receive on board and employ a pilot, the master or owner of such ship or vessel shall pay to such pilot, who shall have offered to go on board and take charge of the pilotage of the vessel, half pilotage." Law of Territory of Orleans of March 31, 1805, § 17, p. 140; Louisiana Rev. Stat. 1853, p. 457, § 17; Rev. Stat. 1856, pp. 403, 404, §§ 9, 19. And this court has held that those statutes are not compulsory. The Merrimac, (1871) 14 Wall. 199,

203.

In Yates v. Brown, (1829) 8 Pick. 22, in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in which the owners of a vessel were held liable for a collision by the fault of a pilot, it is only stated that he was duly authorized to pilot the ship, that he held his commission under the executive authority of the Commonwealth, and that the owners had selected him for this service. And in Massachusetts, as has been observed by its court, "the statute does not make it incumbent on the master of a vessel, subject to pilotage, to receive a pilot, if he chooses to navigate her himself," although it makes him and the owner liable to pay full pilotage fees if a pilot offers his services and they are refused. Martin v. Hilton, (1845) 9 Met. 371, 373.

In Denison v. Seymour, (1832) 9 Wend. 1, in the Supreme Court of New York, the taking of a pilot was not compulsory, and the court said: "The officer here called the pilot is not the same as the pilot recognized in the laws regulating foreign commerce."

In Atlee v. Packet Co., (1874) 21 Wall. 389, which was a suit

Opinion of the Court.

in personam in the admiralty, where the owners of a vessel were held liable for the fault of a pilot, it does not appear that they acted under compulsion in appointing him, and the question of their liability for his acts was not discussed.

In Sherlock v. Alling, (1876) 93 U. S. 99, the case came to this court on writ of error from the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, and therefore none but Federal questions were within the jurisdiction of this court; and the only questions decided, or which could have been decided, were that an act of Indiana making any person liable for the death of another caused by his wrongful act or omission was not, as applied to a tort committed on navigable waters within the State, an encroachment on the commercial powers of Congress; and that an act of Congress making the master and owners of a vessel liable for injuries to passengers under certain circumstances afforded no defence to the action.

The liability of the owner at common law for the act of a pilot on his vessel is well stated by Mr. Justice Story in his Treatise on Agency, (2d ed.) § 456a: "The master of a ship, and the owner also, is liable for any injury done by the negligence of the crew employed in the ship. The same doctrine will apply to the case of a pilot, employed by the master or owner, by whose negligence any injury happens to a third person or his property; as, for example, by a collision with another ship, occasioned by his negligence. And it will make no difference in the case, that the pilot, if any is employed, is required to be a licensed pilot; provided the master is at liberty to take a pilot, or not, at his pleasure; for, in such a case, the master acts voluntary, although he is necessarily required to select from a particular class. On the other hand, if it is compulsive upon the master to take a pilot, and, a fortiori, if he is bound to do so under a penalty, then, and in such case, neither he, nor the owner, will be liable for injuries occasioned by the negli gence of a pilot; for, in such a case, the pilot cannot be deemed properly the servant of the master or the owner, but is forced upon them, and the maxim, Qui facit per aliam facit per se, does not apply."

The answer to the second question must therefore be that in

LAKE ST. ELEV. RD. CO. v. FARMERS' L. & T. CO. 417

Opinion of the Court.

an action at common law the shipowner is not liable for injuries inflicted exclusively by negligence of a pilot accepted by a vessel compulsorily.

Answer to the first question in the affirmative; to the second in the negative.

LAKE STREET ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

No. 669. Submitted May 13, 1901.-Decided May 27, 1901

The action of the Supreme Court of Illinois in this case on April 17, 1901, was a full compliance with the mandate of this court in this case, 177 U. S. 51.

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Herbert B. Turner and Mr. William Berry for the motion to dismiss.

Mr. Clarence A. Knight opposing.

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

When this cause was before us at October term, 1899, it was determined that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois had attached, as respected the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company and its property, before the institution, by the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company, in the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois, of a suit involving the same parties and questions as those in the Federal court; and, accordingly, it was held that the decree of injunction granted by the Superior Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court and by the Supreme Court of Illinois, VOL. CLXXXII-27

Opinion of the Court.

enjoining and restraining the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company from proceeding with its suit in the Circuit Court of the United States, had been improperly granted; and thereupon the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed, and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court. 177 U. S. 51, 62.

In pursuance of the mandate and in conformity with the opinion of this court, the Supreme Court of Illinois, on April 17, 1901, reversed and set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and the injunction decree of the Superior Court.

This action of the Supreme Court of Illinois was a full compliance with the mandate of this court.

But it is now complained that the Supreme Court went further, and beyond our mandate, in directing the Superior Court to dismiss the bill; and this writ of error was sued out asking us to supervise and reverse the action of the Supreme Court in that respect.

But the Supreme Court, in directing a dismissal of the bill, was in the exercise of its own jurisdiction over the cause pending in the Superior Court of Cook County. Whether it should order that court to suspend action until the Federal court had exhausted its jurisdiction or to dismiss the bill, leaving the parties to abide by the decree of the court whose jurisdiction had first attached, was for the Supreme Court of Illinois to determine, and as such action in nowise involved any Federal question this court has no jurisdiction to review it.

It cannot be said that, by ordering the dismissal of the bill, the Supreme Court of Illinois passed upon Federal questions involved in the litigation in such a sense as to give this court jurisdiction to review its decree. The record of the case when here before discloses that, so far as Federal rights were concerned, they were asserted by the defendants in the Superior Court, and hence the dismissal of the bill, if it affected such Federal rights at all, was not a decision against the parties invoking them, which alone would give us jurisdiction.

The writ of error is

Dismissed.

Statement of the Case.

REAGAN v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 239. Argued April 15, 1901.-Decided May 27, 1901.

In 1896, commissioners appointed by judges of the United States Court in the Indian Territory were inferior officers, not holding their offices for life, or by any fixed tenure, but subject to removal by the appointing power. Commissioners appointed by that court prior to the act of March 1, 1895, were entitled to reappointment under that act, but were removable at pleasure unless at that date, or at the date of removal, causes for removal were prescribed by law.

As no causes for removal had been prescribed by law at the date of the removal of claimant in 1896, he was subject to removal by the judge of his district, and the action of that judge in removing him was not open to review in an action for salary.

APPELLANT filed his petition in the Court of Claims, October 13, 1897, and an amended petition October 27, 1899, seeking to recover salary as United States Commissioner in the Indian Territory, at the rate of $1500 per annum, from February 1, 1896, to September 30, 1899, aggregating $5375.

The findings of fact and conclusion of law were as follows: "I. The claimant was, on the 25th day of April, 1893, appointed by the United States court for the Indian Territory United States commissioner within said Territory, under the provisions of section 39 of an act of Congress approved May 2, 1890, chapter 182, (1st Suppl. Rev. Stat. 737,) and upon the 1st day of March, 1895, the claimant was one of the present commissioners, then holding office under an existing appointment. On April 17, 1895, the following order was entered of record in the United States court in the Indian Territory, Southern District:

"It appearing from the records of this court that the said William R. Reagan was a duly appointed, qualified and acting commissioner for the United States court for the Third Judicial Division of the Indian Territory, located at Chickasha, on