Senator SIMMONS. Senator, will you let me finish?

Senator WALSH. Excuse me.

Senator SIMMONS. I had not quite finished. Now, you say that there are very few American vessels engaged in the over-seas trade in competition with foreign vessels, and you attribute that to the fact that under our navigation laws at the present time a foreign vessel can be constructed for less and can be operated for very much less than an American vessel?

Mr. RING. There is not any question about that.

Senator SIMMONS. And for that reason you think we have not been able to meet competition in the over-seas trade?

Mr. RING. I think that is proved very conclusively by the fact that there is a very large amount of foreign tonnage built abroad and owned by Americans, and kept under foreign flags, because they can not put it under the American and operate it.

Senator SIMMONS. Kept under a foreign flag because they can build that vessel abroad, and they can operate it according to the laws of other countries which are more liberal, you think, than the laws of this country?

Mr. RING. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. When you get to the coastwise trade, is not every vessel that is permitted to engage in our coastwise trade upon an absolute equality as to the cost of production, and as to the cost of operation, so far as the laws of this country affect that question?

Mr. RING. So far as I know. I do not know why there should be any difference.

Senator SIMMONS. So that that condition which handicaps our vessels engaged in the foreign trade does not exist as to our vessels engaged in the coastwise trade?

Mr. RING. Not in the least.

Senator SIMMONS. All the coastwise vessels have to be built here. in our navy yards, in our own shipbuilding yards, and they all have to be operated under our navigation laws, and they are upon an absolute parity?

Mr. RING. That is correct.

Senator SIMMONS. And they compete upon equal terms as every industry in this competes with each other on equal terms, but they enjoy this additional advantage in that they are protected against any foreign competition in this traffic?

Mr. RING. That is correct.

Senator WALSH. I intended to inquire of you, when Mr. Choate appeared before you I suppose he canvassed with you the legal and diplomatic aspects of this question?

Mr. RING. Not altogether. He looked at it very largely from the aspect of what is honest.

Senator WALSH. That is what I mean. He felt that we had obligated ourselves by the treaty, and that it was our duty under the treaty to observe those obligations?

Mr. RING. Yes. He made that very emphatic.

Senator WALSH. That is what I meant by the legal and diplomatic aspects of it. He insisted, I assume, from what you say, that the act was in violation and contravention of the treaty?

Mr. RING. He did.

Senator WALSH. Was there any lawyer of equal eminence appearing before you advancing to your body the contrary view?

Mr. RING. I do not know that any lawyer appeared before us. I do not think he appeared as a representative lawyer. I think he appeared more particularly as our representative in England at that time of the treaty, and on the broad principles of what is right and

wrong.

Senator WALSH. But of course he is a very eminent lawyer, and is recognized as such in your city, is he not?

Mr. RING. Yes.

Senator WALSH. And obviously you all regarded the question of the interpretation of the treaty, and the question whether the treaty and the act were in contravention of each other, as falling peculiarly within the domain of a lawyer, did you not, rather than a layman? Mr. RING. I do not think we looked at it from a law point

Senator WALSH. But if you went to get advice to guide your own judgment about the matter as to whether it is or is not in contravention of the treaty you would naturally go to a lawyer, would you not?

Mr. RING. Undoubtedly.

Senator WALSH. You do not remember, however, that any lawyer of eminence, or lacking in eminence, advanced the view, for instance, that was asserted by President Taft, that the act is not in contravention of the treaty. You did not hear that side of the question? Mr. RING. No; the nearest approach to that was not by a lawyer, but by Mr. Nixon, who quoted a great many precedents and treaties and laws at great length.

Senator WALSH. Apparently, then, Mr. Nixon presented the other side?

Mr. RING. Largely so.

Senator WALSH. Your conclusion was arrived at, I take it from what you say, by reason of the fact that you thought the act was in violation of the treaty, and it was not consistent with national honor to insist upon it?

Mr. RING. We did.

Senator WALSH. I want to ask you this question: Suppose you had been convinced of the contrary and your body had felt that President Taft, for instance, was correct in his view that the act was not in violation of the treaty, that our honor was not involved at all; that we were at perfect liberty, if we saw fit to do so, to pass our coastwise vessels through the canal free of tolls, would you then venture any opinion as to what view your body would take as to the wisdom of the legislation?

Mr. RING. Why, if they believed that the law was right and proper, I believe our members would vote accordingly.

Senator WALSH. I want you to differentiate. There is a question of policy here. We will assume now that we have a perfect right to do it if we want to do it, that it is not in violation of the treaty. Now comes the question of policy; shall we exercise our right, shall we give this concession to the coastwise ships in order to enable them to compete more successfully with the transcontinental railroads? Is that a wise policy to pursue? If your chamber was convinced that

it was not in violation of the treaty what would they then say, in your judgment, concerning the wisdom of the policy?

Mr. RING. I could not answer that. I believe our members voted according to what they believed right and proper.

Senator WALSH. I want you to assume that. I assume that. I assume they want to do just what is patriotic and what is wise in the matter, and I want you to assume that they are entirely convinced now that we are fully within our legal rights. Have they considered at all the economic aspect of the question upon that basis or assumption, Mr. Ring?

Mr. RING. Not directly; no-not to my knowledge.

Senator WALSH. What is your own individual opinion of the matter? Suppose you believed we had a perfect right to pass our coastwise ships through the canal free of tolls, supposing we did not have any treaty with England at all in the matter, would you think it would be advisable to legislate that way or to retain the legislation we have?

Mr. RING. Personally, I would be against it.

Senator WALSH. Why?

Mr. RING. Because it is taking that money out of the taxpayers of the United States for a special interest.

Senator WALSH. Yes; but Senator Bristow has called your attention to the fact that we do the same thing in the Soo Canal. In fact, we take the money out of the taxpayers and give it to any ship that wants to go through.

Mr. RING. I do not compare the two. I am thinking of the Panama Canal. As I look at it only one interest will be served by free tolls.

Senator WALSH. That is, you would not make a distinction between the coastwise vessels and the overseas vessels? You would treat them both alike?

Mr. RING. Both alike.

Senator WALSH. Now, what would you say as to the policy of passing them all through the canal free just the same as we let them come free into the port of New York?

Mr. RING. I would certainly be against it. I see no reason why tonnage should not pay, and pay rates that will make the canal a paying proposition in course of time.

Senator WALSH. And you see no difference between the coastwise shipping in that regard and the overseas shipping?

Mr. RING. Not the least.

Senator WALSH. Of course, shipping passing from New York to the west coast of South America would not be in competition with the transcontinental railroads, would it?

Mr. RING. No.

Senator WALSH. But, of course, shipping from the port of New York to the port of San Francisco would be?

Mr. RING. Yes, practically so.

Senator WALSH. You would not find in that, however, any reason for making a distinction?

Mr. RING. Not the least.

Senator BRISTOw. Senator Simons read the language of the treaty, and I understood you to assert that where there was a treaty involved that you thought we ought to conform to the requirements

of the treaty. The Senator asked you if we had other treaties, and made a comparison between the canal and other port charges, for instance.

We have this language in the treaty with Great Britain-I will read it

No higher or other duties or charges shall be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on British vessels than those payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States, nor in the ports of any of the Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe on the vessels of the United States than shall be payable in the same ports on British vessels.

You will see by this paragraph, which is article 2, paragraph 2, of the treaty of 1815-I want to read it to you again so that you can get it clearly in mind. It reads:

No higher or other duties or charges shall be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on British vessels than those payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States, nor in the ports of any of the Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe on the vessels of the United States than shall be payable in the same ports on British vessels.

That treaty is now in force, and yet when a British vessel from Liverpool and an American vessel from Boston enter the port of New York Harbor, port charges are imposed upon the British vessel and not upon the American vessel. Can you see any difference in that treaty and any other treaty that we may have with similar provisions?

Mr. RING. Not as you read it, Senator. I do not know the reasons for that, and as you read it there I should say that the treaty should be lived up to just the same as the Panama Canal treaty.

Senator BRISTOw. The Supreme Court of the United States decided, and Senator Simmons read an extract from it, that since British vessels could not engage in commerce between ports of the United States, because of our navigation laws, that this language did not apply to domestic commerce, and therefore we had a perfect right to exempt domestic vessels or coastwise vessels from these charges, or from the requirements of this treaty. If we can exempt coastwise vessels from port charges in the face of this language why can we not exempt coastwise vessels from toll charges when this language is used

The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise.

The language is not exactly the same, but its purport is exactly the same. If we exempt-and the Supreme Court says we can in one instance-why can we not in the other?

Mr. RING. I am not in a position to answer that question, Senator. Senator SIMMONS. Let me call Mr. Ring's attention to the fact that that was a State law providing for a pilotage charge. Senator BRISTOW. That is a port charge.

Senator SIMMONS. The pilotage charges are regulated by State laws. Each State has passed its own law with reference to pilotage. The Supreme Court in that case did not decide anything at all, as I understand it, except that the State might, in adopting its pilotage laws, classify vessels, and if it required all vessels of the same class to pay the same pilotage that it was not in violation of any law.

Senator BRISTOw. A State could not violate a treaty any more than the General Government could, of course.

Senator SIMMONS. They did not put it upon that ground, but upon the ground that the State passed the pilotage law and that it had a right in passing the pilotage law to classify vessels, and so long as it required all vessels of the same class to pay the same amount of pilotage it was not obnoxious to the Constitution.

Senator BRISTOW. And that classification went into coastwise and foreign commerce, the same classification that this Panama Canal act embraces.

Senator SIMMONS. The decision, I think, specifies the classification. Senator BRISTOW. Are there any foreign shipowners that are members of your chamber?

Mr. RING. Oh, undoubtedly.

Senator BRISTOw. There are some very distinguished railroad magnates, I see, that are also members and officers.

Mr. RING. Yes. I think we embrace practically every line of trade, industry, and profession.

Senator OWEN. Coastwise vessels, too?

Mr. RING. Oh, certainly.

Senator BRISTOw. Have you any members of your chamber who own coastwise vessels that would be eligible for the traffic through the canal under the law?

Mr. RING. I have no doubt we have. I am almost positive of that. Senator PERKINS. Ask him about the Clyde Line and the Mallory Line of steamers running to Cuba.

Senator BRISTOW. The owners of the Clyde Line or the Mallory Line, are they members of your organization?

Mr. RING. Offhand, I should say they were. I do not carry the full membership in my mind.

Senator WALSH. I observe that Mr. Morgan is one of the directors of your chamber?

Mr. RING. He was.

Senator WALSH. Is Mr. Perkins?

Mr. RING. No.

Senator WALSH. Is he a member of your chamber?

Mr. RING. That I do not know.

Senator WALSH. He is a member of the board of directors of the International Mercantile Co., is he not?

Mr. RING. Yes.

Senator WALSH. They are engaged in the building of ships at Belfast, Ireland?

Mr. RING. That I do not know.

Senator OWEN. Lewis Nixon is also a member?

Mr. RING. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the Merchants' Association

of New York?

Mr. RING. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a large or small body?

Mr. RING. A very large body.

The CHAIRMAN. How large?

Mr. RING. Oh, I think they have been 3,500 and 4,000 members.