they charged tolls or do not charge tolls for passage through the canal, they would be upon an equal footing with each other.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your answer to that, Mr. Chamberlain ? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That was a statement.

Senator SIMMONS. I asked you the question: After that canal is built if all American vessels engaged in coastwise trade would not be upon an equal footing upon that trade as it passes through the canal, whether we charge tolls or do not?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Of course.

The CHAIRMAN. If you charge the tolls, then you permit the competing transcontinental railroads and the Tehauntepec Railroad and the Canadian Railroad to increase their rates in proportion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. You do not expect me to express an opinion on that, do you?

Senator SIMMONS. Could you give us any information relative to the rates charged by the transcontinental roads from New York. to San Francisco and the rates charged by coast wise vessels between! Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That has been the subject of an exhaustive investigation by Prof. Johnson, and I think it is all printed. It is quite apart from my work or line of information.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any doubt in your mind that to the extent that you impose burdens upon water transportation you are enabling the competing railroads to increase their rates of freight? Does that need argument?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not see that it does.

The CHAIRMAN. I should not think so. How many foreign lines and ships dock regularly at the port of New York? I presume you have some record of that, have you?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; but not here.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you state in a general way.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. There must be 60 lines of foreign ships that dock at New York. I think as many as that. Perhaps that is too many. I will say 50.

The CHAIRMAN. All the ships docking at New York in overseas trade or under foreign flags, with the exception of the five ships to which you referred a little while ago as being engaged in the Atlantic trade. Is that not correct?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. In the Atlantic trade?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I am speaking of the overseas trade, which is the same thing as the Atlantic trade. Are there any more questions that members of the committee would like to ask?

Senator SIMMONS. I want to ask you just this question. Do you believe that if coastwise ships are permitted to go through the canal free, or if the Government pays the toll for them-do you believe that the water rates and the rail rates from the same points, two points on the coast, would be anything like equal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I have not the slightest idea they will. It would be unusual, I think, if they were. There are all sorts of reasons for differences. Quickness of delivery and all sorts of factors. Rates, of course, are not the result of one single element. There are any number of elements which enter into it.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Have you made any study at all of the questions involved of the possibility of the transcontinental railroads competing with the water-borne commerce through the canal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. None, whatever. That is quite apart from my line of work.

Senator BRANDEGEE. A while ago Senator O'Gorman asked you a question, which I can not repeat verbatum, but I want to know what your understanding of it his question was that related to the possibility of limiting coastwise vessels to the coastwise trade. Do you remember some such question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; I think the Senator asked me if it were possible, and I, of course, said that it was quite competent for Congress to do it if it wanted to.

The CHAIRMAN. And that would be quite practicable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; that it would be quite practicable; no difficulty about it.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, no difficulty in any act, respecting our own vessels engaged in coastwise trade, to provide that they shall be exclusively engaged in coastwise trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Perfectly easy. It could be done in two lines. Senator BRANDEGEE. Of course, it would be perfectly easy to do that, to provide that no vessels should be enrolled for coastwise trade. if it should touch at any foreign port. What I wanted to ask you about was, is it as easy to prohibit the possibility of the cargoes of these vessels in coastwise trade from being transferred to other vessels and performing a part of their complete journey in foreign commerce?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. You mean that there would be commercial impositions?

Senator BRANDEGEE. No; I mean to say if a vessel goes from New York to San Francisco through the canal and disembarks its cargo in San Francisco, that is coastwise trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Surely.

Senator BRANDEGEE. That cargo can then be transferred right into the hold of another vessel and carried to the Orient, so that the cargo itself is engaged, is it not, partly in the coastwise trade and partly in commerce across the seas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Why, yes, of course the two termini of the cargo take in a part of the coast of the United States and two foreign ends.

Senator BRANDEGEE. So that for the purpose of saying whether they are in operation might be a discrimination as between vessels of this nation, if they were exempted in the coastwise trade from the payment of tolls and vessels of other nations, might we not have to look after what happened to the cargo in the transportation problem as well as what happened to the payment of tolls by the vessel?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; in considering the treaty provisions. Senator BRANDEGEE. Have you given any consideration whatever to these differentiations of that question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I never have given very much consideration to the point that you just raised.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Have you given any consideration to this feature of it? If a British vessel is carrying goods from Old England to San Francisco via the canal and has a market there, and an American vessel in the coastwise trade is carrying goods from New England through the canal to San Francisco and has a market there, whether

or not the remission of tolls on the coastwise vessel would allow that vessel to take away a part of the market that these subjects of Great Britain might have on the Pacific Coast; and if so, whether that would be a discrimination or not? I simply ask you if you have considered any of these questions-similar questions to that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No; I never have considered them, because I had quite definite views about the treaty.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you believe in subsidizing the coastwise shipping?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not as a general proposition; I do not think it is necessary.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You believe in exempting these coastwise vessels from tolls through the canal, do you not?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I must again, if you will allow me to, insist on a little different language.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You may answer the question any way you have a mind to, or say what you like.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Then I shall have to say no.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Then I ask you, do you not believe in remitting our tolls on the coastwise shipping through the Panama Canal? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I believe in the contribution of tolls from the Treasury of the United States in behalf of the American ships.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Let me ask you then, Are you in favor of repealing the provision in the act of August 24, 1912, which provides that no tolls shall be charged on coastwise vessels going through the canal?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know that Senator Brandegee would press that question, if he will remember or pause to recall that this gentleman is a part of this administration. I have read his views while he was a part of Mr. Taft's administration.

Senator PERKINS. And I have read them when he was a part of Mr. Cleveland's administration.

Senator BRANDEGEE. We read a great many views from day to day, but sometimes they are not the same one day as they were the day before. I want to give Mr. Chamberlain a chance to state his views upon the policy of exempting tolls on our coastwise vessels through the canal. I am not particular about the form of question if I can have his views whether our vessels ought to be exempted or not in his opinion, as Commissioner of Navigation now.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not exempt, no; as I have said, because I do not believe it can be done consistently with the treaty, and that has been the opinion that I have held under Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Taft or Mr. Wilson, or whoever was President. It is not necessary for me to form my opinions, and they are not usually formed with reference to administrations. I will say this, and I think it is the only way: I do not believe in

Senator WALSH. I do not imagine the Senator wanted anything from the witness as to whether the act conflicts with the treaty

or not.

The CHAIRMAN. No; he is not here as a legal expert.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I do not know what the chairman of the committee thought I wanted. I wanted the witness to state what he wanted to define as his position, and although I thought some of his

remarks need not have been made, I was willing to let him go ahead and make his own statement in justice to himself.

Senator WALSH. I thought you wanted his views concerning the economic aspect?

Senator BRANDEGEE. I asked him this question, as Commissioner of Navigation what policy he thought we ought to pursue. Now, Mr. Chamberlain, have you stated all you want to in answer to that question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Anything else would be a personal matter in view of the rather personal intimation made before, and I do not care to press it.

if

Senator BRANDEGEE. A good many of the questions which have been asked you were gone into exhaustively two years ago, 1912, before this committee, and I do not care to repeat them or to inquire about that testimony. It is all there. Capt. Dollar and others whom you have quoted testified. I do, however, want to ask you my recollection about that testimony is correct, that something more than four-fifths of the entire ocean-borne commerce of the world is carried in vessels of about 3,000 tons, or have you any information on that point?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No; I have no exact information, but it must be substantially right.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I am informed, if you will pardon me, that there are between four and five thousand British tramp vessels. I believe you did not know the number.

Senator BRISTOw. Mr. Chamberlain, how many English ships or foreign ships are engaged in what I will term, in order to convey my idea properly, American commerce? That is, they will ply between American ports, ports of the United States and South America and Central America and Canada; they are on this side of the Atlantic; they stay here; they are worn out here.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. There are several lines. I could not give you the number of ships. You mean ships that are continuously engaged between North and South America?

Senator BRISTOW. Yes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Oh, several lines.

Senator BRISTOW. Between New York and foreign ports, so far as the United States is concerned, but American ports?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. There are several lines. I could not give you the number of ships though, offhand.

Senator BRISTOw. That is, there are English ships and German ships; ships that are owned in England and in Germany and built in England and Germany, which are navigated wholly in waters within this hemisphere?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes, sir.

Senator BRISTOW. Could you, when you are getting other data, ascertain how many ships of that character are engaged in that kind of commerce?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I will try to.

Senator BRISTOW. I should be very much obliged if you would, and that would enable us to have a comparative statement as to the number of American ships and foreign ships that are doing business exclusively between the Americas. You understand the idea? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes, sir.

Senator BRISTOW. Now, of the 363 vessels that you referred to that would be capable of using the canal that are now under the American flag, many of those vessels are engaged in commerce between certain American ports of the United States, and of course could not and would not be used for canal traffic?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. The great bulk of them.

Senator BRISTOW. That is, take the lines running from Galveston and New Orleans to New York, that supplement the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Santa Fe Railroad, that traffic and other similar vessels, so that the vessels can not be regarded at all as ships that would be available for canal traffic. Do you believe that if the tolls were free or if there were no tolls charged, or if the tolls were remitted (paid and then remitted, as has been suggested by some), that it would be an inducement for water-borne traffic between the eastern and the western coasts of the United States and between the Mississippi Valley and the western coast of the United States? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I should think so.

Senator BRISTOW. A ship of 5,000 tons under the present tonnage would be required to pay $6,250, would it not, through the canal? That would be the fee charged?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. At $1.25; yes, sir.

Senator BRISTOW. Now, the remission of that amount would be sufficient to offer an inducement, would it, for the development of that traffic?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. There, again, you can not take things, one factor at a time, that way. There, again, you get into another question, and perhaps I was a little hasty when I said a moment ago, yes, it would be an inducement. Here is a situation that may readily arise. There may be, in fact there is very likely to be, and I am going to get around to the point if you will allow me just a moment in a preliminary way. If there is not adequate tonnage to meet the demands of all the American ports for the coastwise transportation right after the canal is opened, of course there is going to be complaint, and the complaint will be reasonable and ought to be made, that we have not the ships to carry our cargoes. Unless the ships are forthcoming there will be a demand with reason; there will be an inquiry first: Why is this; why do we not have the ships? And the response will be, men will say: "Here are foreign ships, this ship, that other ship, in the harbor of Mobile. We can not use it to go around. Why can we not use it? Because the laws forbid." There will be a demand for the modification of that coastwise law, for its repeal or for its amendment, that foreign-built ships shall engage in the coast trade.

The CHAIRMAN. How long will the American coastwise trade survive the introduction of foreign ships into the coastwise trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Of course the shipyards are now engaged practically in building ships for this coastwise trade, and nothing else except for the Navy, and if they did not have a chance to build for the coastwise trade, of course they would be confined almost exclusively to Government work.

Senator WALSH. That is not an answer to the chairman's question, as I understood it.