Small Ships, Big Fees: A Fight Over Puget Sound Navigation
Richard Chilcott argues that mandatory pilotage is an unnecessary 'octopus' taxing local commerce.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Regarding the interview with Representative Wasson regarding his pilot bill: The bill proposed is said to be a benefit and a necessity to shipping; such is not the case. There is no more occasion for a ship to engage the services of a pilot to navigate the waters of Puget Sound and the Straits of Fuca than there would be to run down the coast to San Francisco. Every shipmaster is provided with charts and sailing directions that are ample for his guidance. There is neither rock, reef nor shoal to hinder the navigation of a vessel from Cape Flattery to Point Defiance, the highest point usually attained by ocean-going vessels. The only redeemable feature in this bill is that it would create a nice little purse in fees for the board of pilot commissioners. Pilotage rates and laws have been the octopus the Columbia River has had to contend with, and should we allow them to hamper and tax our commerce in the same manner, we should be compelled to pay the same rates of freight on our products as the people of Oregon.
“Pilotage rates and laws have been the octopus the Columbia river has had to contend with.”
This is a quintessential merchant grievance regarding the cost of doing business in Seattle harbor. The tension between maritime safety regulations and the 'hidden tax' of pilotage fees remains a recurring theme in the governance of the Port of Seattle.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.