Capt. BRYANT. There are no private corporations operating on United States territory at this time; it is all done under the Navy, practically. Mr. HAMILTON. I asked you to state at the outset what corporations there were, and you corrected my question by defining them as commercial systems? Capt. BRYANT. Yes, sir. I may have misled you. They own stations, but those stations were taken over by the Navy Department at the outbreak of the war. Mr. HAMILTON. Precisely. But the title has not passed? Capt. BRYANT. No, sir. Mr. HAMILTON. So the titles rests in these corporations? Mr. HAMILTON. What I want to get at is how extensive their operations are with a view to ascertaining what will be done by the private corporations after the service is returned to them? Capt. BRYANT. I can tell you that, sir. The transoceanic stations owned by commercial companies, there are three high-powered stations on the Atlantic coast, one in Massachusetts and two in New Jersey, one in Massachusetts at Marion and one at New Brunswick in New Jersey owned by the Marconi Co. The one in Massachusetts operates with a Norwegian station and the one in New Brunswick, N. J., is designed to communicate with a station in Great Britain. The station at Tuckerton, which is owned principally by French interests, is designed to operate with some station in France, presumably. Before the war the Tuckerton station communicated with a German station at Eilvese, in Germany. They are the commercial high-powered stations on the Atlantic coast. Mr. HAMILTON. Your idea is that after the Navy Department ceases to operate these systems the service of the commercial companies is so limited and perhaps inadequate that it will be advisable and practically necessary to continue the supplemental service, as you call it, of the Government? Capt. BRYANT. Yes, sir. Mr. HAMILTON. That is your position? Capt. BRYANT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Captain, we are much obliged to you. Capt. BRYANT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I will submit Capt. Bullard's statement to me to be printed in the record in connection with the testimony of Capt. Bryant. (The statement of Capt. Bullard follows:) NAVY DEPARTMENT, NAVAL COMMUNICATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Memorandum for Hon. J. J. Esch, M. C.. Chairman of Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: My attention has recently been directed to H. R. bill 4378, entitled "A bill to further amend an act entitled 'An act to regulate commerce,' approved February 4, 1887, as amended, and for other purposes." My interest in this bill rests in the fact that I am Director Naval Communications, and as such in charge of all communications of the Navy Department; and I am preparing this memorandum with the approval and at the suggestion of the Secretary of the Navy, as well as the suggestion of yourself. To my mind the language of the bill is not clear as to its intent in the proviso contained in the last five lines of page 2 and succeeding five lines, top of page 3. Does this provision exempt the transmission of intelligence between a fixed point in the United States and a fixed point in a foreign country? It would seem to be desirable that the provisions of the act should not apply to transmission of this character, except for the question of rates to and from the shore stations, but rather this should be controlled by international agreements. The regulations regarding the transmission of intelligence by means of wireless telegraphy are provided for by certain international conventions to which the United States is a signatory party, and the one at present in force is the socalled London convention of 1912. This convention, on account, presumably, of the youth of the art, distinctly reserved the regulation of transmission of intelligence by wireless between fixed points to the high contracting parties, having in mind, of course, fixed points in different countries, and naturally claiming no jurisdiction concerning wireless between fixed points in the same country, which must, of necessity, be a national rather than international affair. Further, I can find nothing in the bill which exempts the regulation of wireless transmission which involves the fixed land stations along the coast, now practically all controlled by the Navy Department, and ships at sea whether of our own or other nationalities. This question is entirely covered by the regulations of the present international treaty, and it is a question as to how far local laws would interfere with the operation of international laws. In the London convention the United States delegation entered a reservation which abstained from all action with regard to rates. The question of rates involving this class of transmission-that is, between ship and shore-has never been questioned, being based on the maximum rate provided, though never equalling it. Thus believing it is not wise to bring this class of transmission under the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, except for the question of land line rates to or from the shore station, as it is already well regulated internationally, I would suggest that a further proviso be added: "The provisions of this act shall not apply to the transmission of intelligence by wireless between coastal stations and ships at sea, except in the matter of land-line rates." Present laws require all land stations other than those of the Government to procure a license from the Department of Commerce before they can operate commercially. This license contains certain provisions based on existing laws, but contains no reference to rates, which are, as a rule, based on the maximum rate allowed by the International Convention, though seldom equalling it. Analogy would seem to indicate that it would be desirable to apply the principles of new railroad construction, elaborated on page 8 and following pages, to the construction of new wireless stations of the class to which the act is applicable, and require the controlling companies to prove the necessity for such new stations, and this necessity should be considered in the light of interference with existing Government stations or commercial stations already in existence, and the character of the work to be done, and should require a permit from the Interstate Commerce Commission before such a station was authorized to be built. Nearly every building requires some sort of a permit, either from local, State, or national authority, before such building can be erected, the authority requiring to be informed of the character of the building and to what use it is to be put, but very few restrictions exist as to the building of wireless stations; but when built a demand for a license can be made, and, provided certain requirements are met, the license granted. This seems to be a back-handed way of going about this proposition, and the Navy Department has always contended that the license should be obtained before the station is erected and proposed builders required to state the character of the business proposed, the wave lengths to be used, hours of operation, stations proposed to communicate with, etc., so some responsible authority could judge as to the needs and necessities of such a station before it is built, and if it is found such a station would seriously interfere with other stations already in existence, the permit to build could be denied. This act seems to provide a natural means by which this desirable feature can be obtained, and it is hoped it may be provided for, considered in its analogy to other common carriers, new construction for which is provided in the bill. If the provisions of this act are intended and do apply to transmission between fixed points, one point in the United States and another in a foreign State, and between shore stations and ships at sea it may be desirable to elaborate somewhat this memorandum. All remarks above are based on the assumption that none of the provisions of the act apply to the construction of operation of stations by any department of the Government itself, always with the exception of land wire rates, though if theNavy Department ever extends its commercial business between fixed points wholly under United States jurisdiction, there could be no objection to the control of rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the wording of the act by which commercial business is now performed by the Navy Department placing the control of rates upon Congress. If there are to be public hearings on this proposed act, the writer would welcome an opportunity to further explain the workings of the commercial business performed by the Navy Department, how rates have been determined and applied, etc., and furnish any further information the committee might desire. W. H. G. BULLARD The CHAIRMAN. We will now be glad to hear Mr. MacLean. STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES F. MacLEAN, 55 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. MACLEAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the Board of Trade and Transportation of New York, for which I speak, is second to none in importance in the interest of inland waterway transportation if one may judge from its accomplishments and achievements. The board of trade has changed largely through its accomplished secretary, Mr. Gardener, what was known formerly as the Erie Canal into the great system now called the Barge Canal, not only connecting the Great Lakes with tidewater at the Hudson River, but also Lake Ontario, the Finger Lakes of the State of New York and Lake Champlain, making them serviceable for water transportation between the whole country riparian to the Great Lakes and the New England seaboard, especially by way of the new Cape Cod Canal to Boston. This advantages not only the State of New York, but the interests of all the States to which reference is made by lessening the cost of transportation for the farmer, the producer of ores, and also the manufacturer and furthermore diminishing the cost of living and enhancing the wages of labor. It seems to us that the distinguished sponsor for the bill under your consideration in raising the term common carrier to a generic term has not fully recognized the difference between transportation under a franchise and the ordinary transportation by canals and other waterways. Persons, individual or corporate, who exploit franchises and operate under franchises take the business that comes to them. Canal boatmen, individual or corporate, largely get their work by making business. They solicit business, at least in our State they solicit business to different parts of the State along our canals, and they so subserve the great manufacturing interests between Albany and Buffalo and on the Finger Lakes and on Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain. The boatman is largely, so to say, an opportunist; he comes on the water at certain seasons of the year and his great opportunity for business, subserving the interests which he serves, must often be decided upon almost immediately. If he has a schedule of prices for any service which can not be changed except upon a notice of 30 days or oftentimes upon 10 days, even a day, the wouldbe shipper would lose his opportunity and the carrier his also. It would be commonplace to speak of the Erie Canal as having created the city of New York and made the port of New York what it is. Had the States of Maryland and Virginia heeded the advice of George Washington, they might have had communication with the Lakes and the seaboard, but they did not avail themselves of the opportunity of securing means of communication at cheap rates between the Great Lakes, the interior of their States and the southern seaboard by means of waterways. We have spent an enormous amount of money upon the State canals that would amount, if it were deposited and compounded after the manner of the savings banks, to something over $500,000,000, and by the time that the bonds which the State of New York has given mature the State of New York will have invested in the canals over a round billion dollars. The people of the State of New York, both officially and as merchants and as members of the population, desire, of course, to do everything which will benefit the State and bring it prosperity and also to bring prosperity, so far as possible, to the States which its canals subserve, for the prosperity of other States must redound to the prosperity of the State of New York. The State of New York contributed in the past year (calculated upon the returns of former years, since the report of Federal revenues and disbursements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1919, is not yet accessible) about 40 per cent of the entire public revenue of the United States, amounting to $5,500,000,000. The 14 other States to which the inland waterways of the State of New York contribute provided 35 more percentage of the entire revenues of the United States. That is, 15 States of which New York is one contributed 75 per cent of all the revenues of the United States, and without that revenue the 33 other States which on the average contributed less than eight-tenths of 1 per cent to the public revenues would, for the most part, have no Federal improvements, buildings, waterways, or anything of that sort. I thank you, gentlemen. Mr. MERRITT. You spoke about the cheaper transportation of the present barge canal. How much tonnage is actually using that canal now? Mr. MACLEAN. I can not state exactly the amount of tonnage that it has, but the amount of tonnage is very low for its capacity. That is very largely due to Federal supervision. Last year almost exactly a year ago, we appeared before the Secretary of the Treasury and asked for certain modifications of the rules so that our people might put boats upon the canals. With a patriotic intent the legislature and the governor of the State placed the canals of the State at the disposition of the Federal Government that there might be made therefrom the greatest possible use in the transportation of munitions of war and other material for the Government. The Secretary of the Treasury said that he could not approve of boats built by the Government taking rates so low as to reduce the revenue of the railroads, and then, again, when he was asked whether he would be willing to make an arrangement by which freight could be shipped to the interior points in the West or from such points to the east on through shipments and through bill of lading and get the advantage of the lower canal rates for the water portion of the carriage, Mr. McAdoo said that he lid not think the administration could do that, because it would interfere with the rail rates. The business of the Federal Government that arose prevented putting on new boats on the canal for individual enterprise and also prevented the creation of carrier lines, because under the circumstances and the placing of the water rates on nearly a parity with the rail rates made it impossible to do business upon the canal. We are very anxious to be out from under the supervision and intervention of the Federal Government in that behalf. Mr. MERRITT. Is it your view that if the business by barges on the barge canal is not under Federal control that private interests will construct barges and that the tonnage will largely increase? Mr. MACLEAN. We were assured of that by the late superintendent of public works who said that he had many requests, almost daily, from private individuals who were going into that business, but that under Federal supervision they had all stopped. Mr. MERRITT. When you said that this canal had made cheap freight transportation for the port of New York, that was rather potential than actual? Mr. MACLEAN. Formerly it did, but since the barge canal was opened, in May of last year, the oppression of the Government has been there. The Erie Canal determined very largely the railway rates because of its competition, and it was the cheaper rate of transportation provided by the Erie Canal that, both directly and indirectly, so much advantage to the city of New York. The CHAIRMAN. Do you understand from this bill, H. R. 4378, that the Interstate Commerce Commission would regulate the portto-port rates along the Erie Canal within the State of New York? Mr. MACLEAN. I do not. I just answered that question. I might go further, but it is obvious that if it is to be a through rate either to the Great Lakes or to Canada that by pro-rating it they might interfere, but so far as the transportation is confined to the State, that is specified in the bill. The CHAIRMAN. We are much obliged to you, Mr. MacLean. Hon. JOHN J. ESCH, NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE AND TRANSPORTATION, Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: Conforming to request you made at recent hearing before your committee we inclose herewith draft of suggested amendments to H. R. 4378. These amendments are submitted as expressing the views of the waterways and commercial interests in this State represented so largely by the New York State barge canal conference, a State-wide organization, and the York Board of Trade and Transportation, a New York City organization. We have also had the benefit of the views and criticisms of Hon. Georg · Clinton, of Buffalo, who is chairman of the executive committee of the N York State Waterways Association, and Mr. Clinton informs us that he intimated to you that we will forward amendments agreeable to him. Very truly, yours, CHARLES F. MACLEAN, Chairman Executive Committee, New York State Barge Canal Conference. FRANK S. GARDNER, Secretary New York Board of Trade and Transportation. |