Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator SIMMONS. But the Commissioner of Navigation told us as a matter of fact they did do it.

Mr. HART. Of course, I do not know, but my information on that has just been the other way. I think that is what Mr. Porch said, that they did not do it.

Senator SIMMONS. I do not know what may be Mr. Porch's view about it, but I do know what the Commissioner of Navigation has testified after a cross-examination.

Mr. HART. Then I would answer your question after that explanation by stating that if it is necessary to give the full benefit to coastwise ships to include this additional service; I think it ought to be included.

Senator SIMMONS. Let me ask you another question. The treaty did provide for equality of treatment of vessels of all nations, so as not to discriminate against a citizen or subject of any country in its traffic. Not only the vessel is involved in that consideration under the terms of the treaty, but the traffic itself and the interest of the citizen or citizens of the country from which the ship sails is also involved, is it not?

Mr. HART. I do not exactly grasp that question.

Senator SIMMONS. Here is a treaty that says that we guarantee entire equality of treatment of vessels for the purpose of securing the citizens and subjects of all nations against discrimination in the use of this canal. That is an agreement which affects not only the traffic in the vessel itself, but protects that traffic against discrimination.

Mr. HART. If you were to ask me for my individual opinion, I am of the opinion of those who argue that the treaty does not refer to American vessels at all. That would be my interpretation of the treaty if I were the sole interpreter of it. That is the way I would interpret it.

Senator SIMMONS. It says that there shall be entire equality of treatment, and this equality of treatment in the treaty is declared to be for the purpose or with the view of protecting the traffic in the ship, the merchandise in the ship, against discrimination. Would you not hold that if a citizen of another country whose goods were in that ship was discriminated against by virtue of this toll that it was a violation of the treaty?

Mr. HART. I do not see the point, I must say, because a foreigner may ship his goods in an American ship and they would have no discrimination. If he chooses to send it in a ship that has to pay tolls, that is his lookout. One kind of a ship may have to pay a larger toll than another. A ship not as heavy laden may have to pay a larger toll than another. That is the chance which everybody has got to take in common. I do not think the treaty would go into such minor matters as that.

Senator SIMMONS. I do not think that is a minor matter. I think that was the very essence of it. That was the purpose of the treaty, not so much to protect the ship but to protect the traffic that is in the ship, and the citizen who owns that traffic, against discrimination.

Mr. HART. Of course, if there is discrimination against the ship there is discrimination against the owner necessarily. I do not see that that question meets the point at all.

Senator SIMMONS. Let me put it to you in another view. Suppose that we have stipulated with Great Britain and with Panamabecause the treaty with Panama has the same terms in it, the same

provisions in it with respect to the equality of treatment for ships and traffic. Now, the proper construction of that is that there is to be no discrimination against the merchandise of the citizen of any nation passing through that canal. Suppose an American ship is loaded at San Francisco with goods belonging to an American citizen, that ship with its cargo would pass through the canal to New York free of toll.

Now, suppose that another ship, a week afterward, was loaded at Vancouver with merchandise belonging to a citizen of Great Britain, that ship passing through the canal to New York, the same place that the other ship went, with the same character of goods in it. That ship would have to pay tolls, would it not?

Mr. HART. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. Would you not consider the fact that the American citizen's goods went through the canal free of tolls, while the British citizen's ship on the coast just above there went through and paid tolls a discrimination against that citizen of Great Britain? Mr. HART. That begs the whole question, because of course there is discrimination in favor of the American ships in the coastwise trade. There is a discrimination, you might say, in giving American ships the exclusive right in the coastwise trade. The decision of the Supreme Court in the pilotage case was that the laws regarding pilotage in general did not refer to American ships engaged in the coastwise trade. The discrimination goes further back, in giving the coastwise trade to the American ships alone.

Senator SIMMONS. We have stipulated for equal treatment of the ships of all nations. Great Britain by reason of its ownership of the Dominion of Canada has a coast on each ocean. Great Britain has, therefore, upon this continent a coastwise trade as well as we have a coastwise trade. Mexico fronts on both oceans. Mexico has a coastwise trade which will go through the canal as well as the United States has. Do you not think if we let our coastwise trade go through the canal free, and refuse to let the coastwise trade of Mexico, owning coasts fronting on both oceans, and the coastwise trade of Canada, owning territory fronting on both oceans, go through free, that there would be a discrimination in favor of the American coastwise trade, as against British and Mexican coastwise trade?

Mr. HART. Certainly. That can be answered in two parts. The first question is whether or not any foreign country can interfere in our internal affairs, and determine what we shall do with our coastwise vessels. That is one proposition. The other proposition is if the treaty applies to the United States as well as all nations, then the the coastwise trade of all other nations should go through the canal free, and I say without any question that they ought to go through free.

Senator SIMMONS. Allow me to say that the question of whether a ship of a foreign country is allowed to engage in the coastwise trade to my mind has nothing to do with the question. It is just as important, from my standpoint, that there should be no discrimination between vessels of this country and of another nation engaged in the overseas trade, and it is just as important that there should be no discrimination between vessels of this country engaged in the coastwise trade of this continent and vessels of a foreign country engaged in their coastwise trade, as there should be no discrimination between

vessels of a foreign country engaged in the overseas trade and vessels of this country engaged in the overseas trade.

Mr. HART. I understand that to be your argument.

Senator SIMMONS. And the effect would be the same in both cases, would it not?

Mr. HART. I do not think it would be the same.

Senator SIMMONS. So far as it affects the pecuniary interest of the citizen engaged in the trade, if you discriminate against the coastwise trade of Canada in favor of the coastwise trade of this country or the coastwise trade of Mexico in favor of the coastwise trade of this country, the pecuniary effect upon the citizens of those two countries interested in that coastwise trade will be affected in just the same way as discriminating against the American overseas vessels engaged in the foreign trade and the vessel of any foreign country engaged in the foreign trade, would it not?

Mr. HART. As I said here I am perfectly free to admit that if it is once considered that a foreign government, treaty or no treaty, unless the treaty was very precise, can say what we shall do with our internal commerce if that premise is admitted, then I say the coastwise trade of every country in the world should go through the canal free. But I do not understand that that question has been presented in any form as to that point. If that point is to be considered that the discrimination is in the coastwise trade, then I say that all coastwise vessels should be put on the same footing.

Senator SIMMONS. By charging the coastwise trade of Canada and of Mexico a toll and not charging the coastwise trade of this country a toll in passing through the canal, is not that a discrimination? Mr. HART. Of course it is a discrimination, and I think it is a discrimination that this country has the right to make.

The CHAIRMAN. I have received a letter from Secretary Redfield, of the Department of Commerce, containing a brief statement made by the Navigation Commissioner, Mr. Chamberlain, showing the number of seagoing steamers of a thousand net tons or over belonging to the various countries including our own, and also the number of ships engaged in the over-sea trade.

These papers will be inserted in the record.

Senator THORNTON. That is in response to a request made upon Mr. Chamberlain ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. There is another communication from Mr. Chamberlain to the clerk of the committee, giving an extract from one of his records, showing the number of vessels of 100 tons or over in the various countries.

(The papers referred to are as follows:)

DEPARTMENT of Commerce,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, April 20, 1914. DEAR SENATOR: Replying to your letter of the 13th instant advising me that the Committee on Interoceanic Canals on that date had requested Commissioner Chamberlain to supply the committee with the number of vessels of Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Norway, Italy, Japan, China, and the United States in the overseas trade which have a tonnage of 1,000 tons or over, I now inclose the statement requested. Very truly, yours,

Hon. J. A. O'Gorman,

WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary.

Chairman Committee on Interoceanic Canals,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

[blocks in formation]

The words "over-seas trade" for the figures above have been construed to mean voyages open to international competition and 2,000 miles or more between terminals. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, Commissioner.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

BUREAU OF NAVIGATION,
Washington, April 20, 1914.

Mr. FRANK Oliver,

Clerk, Committee on Interoceanic Canals,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. OLIVER: I notice from the hearings you sent me bottom of page 57 and top of page 58-that possibly the Interoceanic Canals Committee wishes the Lloyd's statement of tonnage of various nations to which I referred in answering several questions. I inclose it herewith so that you can do as the committee wishes in the matter. Respectfully,

E. T. CHAMBERLAIN,

Commissioner.

Number and net and gross tonnage of steam and sailing vessels of over 100 tons, of the several countries of the world, as recorded in Lloyd's Register for 1913-14.

[blocks in formation]

Number and net and gross tonnage of steam and sailing vessels of over 100 tons, of the several countries of the world, as recorded in Lloyd's Register for 1913-14—Continued.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I stated that on Monday I would present to the committee this correspondence which I hold in my hand with reference to the Canadian treaty. My clerk advises me that he put in all that was in the book. He said everything was in that was in the other, except some matters that did not pertain to any treaty at all.

I do not want to put this in now. I am just offering it because I said I would present it on Monday, but we had no meeting on Monday. I will present it to-morrow when we have a full meeting. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock.

(Accordingly, at 4 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, April 22, 1914, at 10.30 o'clock.)

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »