Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ring, you were about to proceed with a copy of the resolution that was adopted, I think.

Mr. RING (reading):

To the Chamber of Commerce:

There has been introduced in Congress bill H. R. 27572, for the alleged purpose of restoring the foreign merchant marine

Mr. CHAIRMAN. That is the wrong resolution. I will read the correct one. It reads:

To the Chamber of Commerce:

By the action of Congress in passing the Panama Canal bill, according the privilege of free transport through the canal to United States coastwise tonnage, a serious issue has been raised between this country and Great Britain, as to violation of the HayPauncefote treaty.

Since the passage of the Panama Canal bill there has been extensive and very general discussion of it throughout the country, both in the press and on the platform, and the sentiment of the country is very largely against the provision according free passage to coastwise tonnage. Senator Elihu Root has introduced in the Senate the following bill, to prevent discrimination in Panama Canal tolls:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section five of the Panama Canal act, approved August twenty-fourth, nineteen hundred and twelve, be, and it hereby is, amended by striking out the following words: 'No tolls shall be levied upon vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States,' and the following words: Other than for vessels of the United States and its citizens.'"

Your committee has given the bill careful consideration and presents the following resolutions:

"Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York indorses Senate bill 8114, introduced by Senator Root, to change the Panama Canal bill by striking out all provisions providing for free passage of commercial tonnage through the canal; and be it further

"Resolved, That the committee on foreign commerce and the revenue laws be authorized to represent the chamber at any committee hearings on this bill, and that copies of these resolutions be transmitted to Congress."

WELDING RING,

HOWARD C. SMITH,
EDWARD D. PAGE,

GEORGE GRAY WARD,

WILLIAM E. PECK,

SILAS D. WEBB,

GEORGE A. ZABRISKIE,

Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws.

NEW YORK, January 27, 1913.

Senator SIMMONS. That is the resolution brought in by the committee appointed to consider this question?

Mr. RING. Yes; and presented to the chamber and debated by the chamber at three meetings

Senator SIMMONS. Just a moment. That was a unanimous report of that committee?

Mr. RING. A unanimous report.

Senator SIMMONS. Did you have considerable debate at the first meeting?

Mr. RING. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. Was that the meeting at which Mr. Choate appeared?

Mr. RING. No; Mr. Choate appeared at the final meeting.

Senator SIMMONS. Then you adjourned and called another meeting? Mr. RING. No; we adjourned to the next regular meeting, and at the next regular meeting there was not sufficient time

Senator SIMMONS. Was there any notice given that you would consider this matter at the next regular meeting?

Mr. RING. Yes; full notice. The discussion was adjourned with the understanding that it was to come up again for discussion at the next regular meeting.

Senator SIMMONS. Did you have a full meeting at the next regular meeting?

Mr. RING. The usual full meeting running from-I do not recall the number-I can get it if you wish.

Senator SIMMONS. Put it in the record.

Mr. RING. It was about 250 to 280.

Senator SIMMONS. Was there a prolonged discussion?

Mr. RING. Yes, sir; quite so; and it was found that all those who desired to speak could not do so within a reasonable limit of time, and it was suggested that a special meeting be called devoted entirely to the discussion of this one question. That meeting was called for a week later. Notice was sent out to all the members what the meeting was to be for. And, as I have already stated, it was an unusually large attendance of our members.

Senator SIMMONS. Was there a prolonged discussion then?
Mr. RING. Yes, sir; quite so.

Senator SIMMONS. How long were you in discussing it?

Mr. RING. I should say very nearly two hours.

Senator SIMMONS. A good many speeches were made in that time? Mr. RING. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. Was that a pretty full meeting?

Mr. RING. That was an unusually full meeting. The chamber was crowded, in fact.

Senator SIMMONS. The chamber of commerce, I think, is the leading commercial organization in the city, is it?

Mr. RING. Well, we think so.

Senator SIMMONS. That is the chamber which represents all lines of trade and industry?

Mr. RING. Everything.

Senator SIMMONS. There are others that pertain to other lines, but this board represents all the different activities of the city? Mr. RING. That is correct, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. The vote, you say, was 337 to 7?
Mr. RING. Three hundred and thirty-three to seven.

Senator SIMMONS. Three hundred and thirty-three in favor of repeal?

Mr. RING. Three hundred and thirty-three in favor of repeal. Senator SIMMONS. And seven against repeal?

Mr. RING. Seven against.

Senator BRISTOw. I was interested in that part you were reading in regard to shipping, and the overseas merchant marine. Has the chamber of commerce ever taken any position in regard to the best methods to be employed in encouraging our merchant marine in the development of our overseas shipping?

Mr. RING. We have had numerous discussions on that point, Senator.

Senator BRISTOw. Was this part that you started to read, and then withdrew, some action of the chamber in regard to that? Mr. RING. You mean the first that I commenced reading? Senator BRISTOW. Yes.

Mr. RING. That was another subject, not relating to this bill.

Senator BRISTOW. Did it relate to the merchant marine in any way?

Mr. RING. It related to a bill which purported to charge discriminating duties on all merchandise imported into the United States in vessels not flying the American flag, the extra duty to be 1 per cent the first year and increasing each year until it was 5 per

cent.

Senator BRISTOw. That related to the tariff, then?

Mr. RING. Yes; that related to the tariff.

Senator BRISTOw. Was the sentiment of the chamber, the members of it, adverse to that legislation?

Mr. RING. The report and accompanying resolutions were unanimously adopted by the chamber.

Senator BRISTOW. Against the provision or in favor of it?

Mr. RING. Against it.

Senator BRISTOW. Against the discriminating duties in favor of American vessels?

Mr. RING. Yes; against it.

Senator BRISTOW. What method of developing the American merchant marine does the chamber of commerce favor?

Mr. RING. There is a difference of opinion, Senator, in regard to that.

Senator BRISTOW. What is the prevailing opinion, in your judgment?

Mr. RING. In my judgment the thing to do is to change our navigation laws. I do not think we will ever have a merchant marine until we are placed on the same basis of navigating our ships as other

countries.

Senator BRISTOW. What changes do you think ought to be made? Mr. RING. There are quite a number of them.

Senator BRISTOW. What important ones have you in mind?

Mr. RING. Allowing us to navigate our steamers on the same basis that other countries do.

Senator BRISTOW. What changes would it be necessary to make in order to put them upon the same basis, so that they might operate as cheaply?

Mr. RING. Allowing us to employ officers and crew on the basis that foreign countries pay.

Senator BRISTOW. That is, upon the same wage scale as foreign countries?

Mr. RING. The same wage.

Senator BRISTOW. And officered by foreigners instead of Americans? Mr. RING. Not necessarily, if we could get Americans to accept on the same terms.

Senator BRISTOw. Supposing an officer would not work for $30 a month, you would then suggest that they hire a foreign officer who would work for that, in order that they might reduce the expense of operation down to the foreign scale?

Mr. RING. That is the only way we can meet that competition.
Senator BRISTOw. You do not favor a subsidy to these ships?
Mr. RING. No.

Senator BRISTOW. You think it would not be advisable?
Mr. RING. No, I do not.

Senator BRISTOW. Do you think it would be better to change our navigation laws so as to permit absolute and unrestrained competition in the employment of men and officers?

Mr. RING. I do.

Senator BRISTOW. So as to fix the scale of wages and the same operating expenses for an American vessel that a Japanese vessel, an English vessel, or a German vessel has to pay?

Mr. RING. That is my view.

Senator BRISTOW. Do you think that is the general view of the chamber of commerce of which you are a representative?

Mr. RING. I should say largely so. I would not like--I do not feel authorized to express a definite opinion about that, Senator.

Senator BRISTow. Do you believe that the foreign vessels should be permitted to operate in our coastwise trade?

Mr. RING. No; I am quite satisfied to leave that to the American vessels as it is at the present time.

Senator BRISTOW. Would you have this change in our navigation laws apply to vessels in the foreign trade?

Mr. RING. Yes; it could not apply otherwise. They are not allowed to indulge in the coastwise trade.

Senator BRISTOW. The navigation laws that affect the wages of the men employed and the expenses along that line could be changed so as to permit the vessels engaged in the coastwise trade to employ foreigners if Americans would not work for the foreign scale of wages. That could be done, could it not, just as well?

Mr. RING. I suppose it could be done, but I do not know that I would advocate it.

Senator BRISTOW. You think, then, that the present navigation laws, so far as they relate to coastwise trade, are not objectionable? Mr. RING. Not to me.

Senator BRISTOW. And they are objectionable so far as the overseas trade is concerned, because our vessels can not pay the wages that it is necessary to pay under the American navigation laws and still compete with the foreign vessels who do not have to pay such wages to their seamen and their officers?

Mr. RING. That is the exact position.

Senator BRISTOw. And in order that our vessels may compete in our foreign commerce, flying the American flag, you feel that it is necessary to put them upon the foreign scale? Of course these American vessels engaged in the foreign trade would be able to operate at a very much less expense than they do now, and would have some chance, then, in the competition?

Mr. RING. You mean the American vessels?

Senator BRISTOW. Yes.

Mr. RING. That is right.

Senator BRISTOW. And would also be able to operate at a very less expense than the coastwise vessels would be able to, since the modification in our navigation laws would not apply to our coastwise ships?

Mr. RING. That is true.

Senator BRISTOW. And comparison of the rates charged for handling traffic between the foreign vessels and the American vessels would show, I take it, that the foreign vessels carry the traffic at a less rate than the American vessels will?

Mr. RING. No; because the American vessels have to meet the competition or they do not get the freight.

Senator BRISTOW. They have to do that, and since they do not meet it there are not any American vessels?

Mr. RING. That is correct.

Senator SIMMONS. You do not mean to say there are none?
Mr. RING. NO.

Senator BRISTOW. Well, substantially none. Fifteen I believe we have out of the thousands of other countries.

Was the question of the competition which the coastwise vessels have with the American railways discussed by your chamber of commerce?

Mr. RING. To a limited degree; yes.

Senator BRISTOW. What was the general sentiment among the members of your chamber as to the possible competition of the coastwise vessels with the railways?

Mr. RING. I do not know that I could state the general sentiment, but I believe the general view was that it would not practically make any difference, that this saving of tolls which we made on coastwise shipping would be simply absorbed by the owners, and there would be no practical competition any more than between the railroads and the steamship lines than there is now- that they would get all they could out of it and keep it.

Senator BRISTOw. The tolls charge would be an expense of operation on a vessel, would it not, plying between San Francisco and New York, we will say?

Mr. RING. We all know what the proposed rate is to be- $1.25

a ton.

Senator BRISTOW. Whatever toll it is, it is one of the expenses of operating the vessel, is it not, between those ports?

Mr. RING. Yes; that is correct.

Senator BRISTOW. If the vessel registered 5,000 tons, $1.25 & ton would be $6,250, or $12,500 on a round trip between New York and San Francisco. That would be that much additional expense that the vessel would incur in making that trip. Is not that expense of operation the same as any other expense of operation?

Mr. RING. Naturally it is.

Senator BRISTOw. It is the same as any other expense?
Mr. RING. Yes, sir.

Senator BRISTOw. That $12,500 would be quite an item?

Mr. RING. Yes; it would be quite an item. But when you come to divide that up per ton it is very small.

Senator BRISTOW. Yes: but it would be quite an item on the sum total.

Mr. RING. Yes.

Senator BRISTOw. If that ship made 10 trips during the year between those ports-10 round trips-it would be a fair ship to make 10 round trips, but we will say it could make 10 round trips, there would be a total for the year's operation of $125,000 that it would pay in tolls?

Mr. RING. That is correct.

Senator BRISTOW. Why do you not think that that added expense would make it necessary for the ship to charge higher rates than it otherwise would charge?

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »