the Navy Department. Provision should be made authorizing the loan or transfer of water-front property under the control of other departments of the Govern ment to the Department of Commerce to provide space for the Merchant Marine Academy and training schools. It is recommended, therefore, that section 802 be amended to read as follows: "802. (a) The Secretary of Commerce, with the approval of the President, is hereby authorized and directed to establish a Merchant Marine Academy for the training of citizens of the United States as officers for service on vessels documented under the laws of the United States, and to qualify them for commissions as officers of the Merchant Marine Naval Reserve. The Secretary of Commerce, with the approval of the President, is hereby authorized and directed to establish, in such principal ports of the United States as he deems advisable, schools for the training of citizens of the United States as seamen for service on vessels documented under the laws of the United States. Citizens enrolled as students at the Merchant Marine Academy and under instruction at the training schools for seamen shall be enrolled in the Merchant Marine Naval Reserve in appropriate grades or ratings. The Secretary of Commerce shall make the necessary rules and regulations for the education and training of such citizens and such rules and regulations shall include instructions prepared by the Secretary of the Navy to govern the training of such citizens in their duties as members of the Merchant Marine Naval Reserve. Citizens under instruction at the training schools for seamen shall be trained in seamanship, particularly in the manning, handling, and rowing of lifeboats, and in knowledge of the construction and use of all appliances and equipment used on board modern passenger and cargo ships with which seamen are concerned, with a view to making American seamen the most efficient and skilled and to create an adequate Merchant Marine Naval Reserve. "(b) Upon successful completion of the prescribed course of instruction at the Merchant Marine Academy students shall receive certificates from the Secretary of Commerce showing that such course has been satisfactorily completed, and such students shall be eligible for commissions as officers in the Merchant Marine Naval Reserve. On the conclusion of training at the training schools for seamen. certificates showing that such training has been had shall be issued by the Secretary of Commerce to each individual who has satisfactorily demonstrated his skill and capacity, and the holding of such certificate shall be a condition to the procurement of a certificate as an able seaman as now provided by law. "(c) Water-front property under the control of other departments of the Government may be loaned or transferred to the Department of Commerce for use in establishing the Merchant Marine Academy and the schools for the training of citizens as seamen.' Section 804: The exceptions at the end of this section for obvious reasons should include salvage vessels. It is recommended that lines 1 and 2, page 40, of section 804, be changed to read as follows: "section shall not apply to fishing or whaling vessels, or yachts, or vessels engaged in salvage operations." Section 1004: The Navy Department has already submitted to Congress a proposed amendment to section 702 (a) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1928 which would authorize the President to take and purchase or use any vessel documented under the laws of the United States for national defense when war is imminent. The importance of such an amendment to the national defense cannot be overemphasized. It has the approval of the War Department and the Department of Commerce and, so far as is known, there has been no opposition from the merchant marine industry. It is imperative that the President have authority to take and purchase or use for national defense prior to the declaration of war not only those ships which have received financial aid from the United States but also all other vessels enjoying the protection of our flag. No enhancement of the value of such vessels by reason of the causes necessitating the taking should be permitted. It is recommended that the amendment to section 702 (a) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1928 as contained in section 1004 of H. R. 7521 be changed to read as follows: "SEC. 702. (a) Any vessel registered, enrolled, or licensed under the laws of the United States may be taken and purchased or used by the United States for national defense in time of war or when war is imminent. The Navy Department recommends the inclusion of the above suggested amendments in the bill H. R. 7521. Sincerely yours, W. H. STANDLEY, Acting. PORT DISCRIMINATION Mr Satvian Oris BraND PORT OF STOCKTON Stockton Ca'if, March 2" 1995 Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine, Raho, and Fisheries, Ho at of Represent auten, Washington DC Dean So Wide we believe most heartily in ei,beiter we do not believe in how to steam at ip compstuks which can be prevested by foregrow ned in compit, ex from serving Artericas porte We are attsetarg letter we are writing Mr. Peacock of tre 8.jpg Board, jw! 《9%,!,"%" !a? ་ tin W w» !e! ¢ £༄ «f petit པt that at ! legin{ht in aHtt of:ar z ཟ •ucattuo°il tiut I Les carry in, th or fer to pr vert te ve sean boyett, at ereby from z dieta'c i to by foreign t ivan tre serving of Americati ports, 18 at 1 e preset time is not corrected by the Fatman rej jest voir support for the inclusi a of the attached BALLIN Director of the Port PORT OF STOCKTON Mr. James Craig Peacock, Inrector Shipping Hoard Barena. Stockton, Cauf, March 25, 1,455, Washington, DC My Dran Mn Pracock I wish to thank you must kindly for your ecrisid eration in the matter of our complaint against the Pacifie Cast European Conference wh, el, voar Baron 1 of Reg.'stor is now kandung We apprvenste voir cars deration, it this matter and are writing you with reference to the matter of wihimpities which is now before Congress, We are desirous of having attached the foll wing amer ime:t to any measure havirgtordo wititleR% _tougof siloats **Best vendred by the Senate and Hase Represent vlives in Ongress assembic 1, "IT at no steans).p line operating vessels befor ging to the Tsite 1 States of case i or being purchased from the United States of any agerey thereof; or at v steamship eoninians receiväg from the Us, ted States or any agunev Pereof any sabady or payment through contract for the carrying of nau's or otherwise, e's being to a y conference or nas ir stiti releve 1 of the Sherman Act which either Viruigh offic si acts or policies dietates either direty or indirectly tie ying of any port within the contine ta, limits of the l ted States leated on v jmt rovement project designed for the necomimpidation of orean gu g Vessela aythorned by the Congress or through, it by any other agency of the Federal Govern ment I am sure that ever, red blooded. American, ext.acti in it. favor of the American mere:aut marine, at i, if he understar in the mit iation, wil, be wing to do atvPugle reasonably eat to assust, but at the watue tune we believe that every red3 Bed Americat e tre., M.. be aver to forenci, steatushup companies operating rout laws relieved of ti Sterrass. Act a date it restrait of trade to ictate to American-owned steamstop cotapaties which ports of the United States they may serve as i wljjeh one the, may not sorve In other words, taking as a ectcrete example the corp'vet which we have just registered with, you aga...st tu Pacific Coast Europe a.. Car fere, e, there is a group compe st og mil of the steninskip compat.'s operatig between, the Pacific coast of the United States and 1.arop numbering 17 steamship lines, without a singie American-owned vessel in the entire group There is one oniy other steams' plze operating between this coast and Europe which in the I«t) njan Line, and which, on account of its af, iation with the United States Steel Cor pation, does not be ong to the Conference Now, let's assume that, through some subsidy or Government assistance, an American line decided to enter the trade between, the Pacific coast and Europe They would go into this Conference and be 100 percent d. tated to by these fur eign steamship companies as to which American ports they could serve and which ones they could not serve. Since filing our complaint with you regarding these European steamship lines boycotting the port of Stockton for 2 years, we have just learned that they have arbitrarily decided to remove their service from the port of Richmond, Calif., and are also contemplating removing their service from the port of Vancouver, Wash. Certainly, following the old saying that "charity should begin at home", we feel that no steamship company receiving a subsidy should be allowed to be in a Conference where by foreign votes it can be denied the inherent right to serve any American port it wishes. That, in short, is the purpose of this amendment. Now, let us take its practical application. Let us assume that a steamship company through subsidy enters the European trade from the Pacific coast. The European steamship companies will desire it to belong to the Conference in order to stabilize rates. The new steamship line will desire to belong to the Conference because of the benefits which it will thereby receive. Consequently, the net result will be that the Conference under this amendment will amend its rules so as not to include in them the dictation of which American ports may be served. In all other details, the Conference will go happily on its way the same as ever. The especially unfortunate part of the situation under existing law is that your department does not know what is going on in the meetings of these conferences. You have no representative who sits in the conferences. You do not know what are in the minutes, and still more important you do not know of the conversations and discussions which are just as important in these meetings but which are not put in the minutes. We, accordingly, feel that it is vital to our American ports to have this amendment placed in any subsidy legislation, and believe that in view of our recent complaint the situation which it exposes, and the other actions such as regarding Richmond and Vancouver, Wash., which I have mentioned and which are now under way by this same group, you may see the necessity of this sort of protection. This in no way interferes with any regulation either by your department or any other Government bureau, but simply preserves to our American ports their inherent right to service by the American merchant marine without hindrance of foreigners. We are requesting of our Representatives and others that this legislation be enacted and are making this explanation to you of our position in the matter. Thanking you again for your cooperation, I am Very truly yours, B. C. ALLIN, Director of the Port. MANGHUM & MANGHUM, Washington, D. C., April 29, 1935. COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, House of Representatives, United States Capitol, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Supplementing my letter of April 23, regarding H. R. 7521, a bill to develop a strong American merchant marine, to promote the commerce of the United States, to aid national defense, and for other purposes, in which letter I requested opportunity to be heard on behalf of the Sacramento (Calif.) Chamber of Commerce. I am today advised by the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce that it is in favor of the provisions of the bill which preserve intact the Shipping Act of 1916, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, and the Intercoastal Shipping Act of 1933. The provisions of the bill preserving these acts we find are sections 701, 702, 1005, and 1012. The Chamber of Commerce of Sacramento is in favor of regulation in line with the acts referred to. In respect to the other provisions of the bill it expresses no opinion. It respectfully requests that its position, as indicated above, be given due consideration and spread upon the record. Respectfully, H. E. MANGHUM. RATE REGULATION STATE DEPARTMENT, Hon Merryter Otis BrAND Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives My DraЯ Ma Brand. I am informe i that the ship muhady and water carrier 15. HR 7521 at 1 5579, respectively tow perdag before De Committee on Merchant Marine and histeries contain, provisions for the reg ilation by governmental a ithority of rates fares and el srges of foreign ships in our commerce, fas this world dinetly affect our fort gt, relations and the problems of commetal poly with wi department is conversed. I feel that I sti suld not fa ` to make Gear De fa ↑ "at sich provisions are, to my mind, open to certain Be *111# objections. „teretand 1' at the regulation of the rates charged by vessels in our where may be necessary, but I think it important to keep clearly essential distinct, or between that commerce, which both begins and e- in wit our ferri' \r\ and the foreign commerce which at our end or the other enters the juris fiction, of another government I do not feel tí at an attempt by this Government to prescribe maram im rates which may be el arged by foreign vessels on the cargoes whal. they carry between Arena" at 1 for gu ports wou'd be in ht with that basic principle in our treaty stra ture ut fer which we have granted to foreign sipping the right of free access to our perts and in return have obtained for our s'aps the right of mante foreign þorta Certainly a jeh reg 'ntact, would be in cor flict with te general's accepte i practices of international law It is pertinent to observe 1 at when last year a code of fair competition for the slipping in dustry was under cons, leration, which would have authorised the regulation of the rates of foreign vessels with respect to traffe inte and out of our ports representations were made by several foreign governments to the effect that such reg ilation would bean, vi lation of treats night On April 5I transm, ted to you a copy of a bote from the Dans) Minister in Washir gton expressing bing vernment a ́objections, on similar grounds, to the relevant provisions of the Fan water-carrier bills, and I am sending you separately a copy of the same Vucister a more recent note relating to the corresponding provisions of the ship wubsidy Fille As you are do abtless aware, the proposed code of fair competition for the shippug itahustry referred to above failed to receive the President's approval, and one of the principal objections raised against it related to the provisions for regulation of rates in foreign commerce, In my opinion, a most serious objection to any unilateral attempt by this Government to fix rates in foreign commerce nes in the fact that this procedure would add one more form of restriction to the entangled and conflicting mass of nationalatie restrictions from which our foreign trade is suffering today The Impracticability of such unilateral regulation can readily be appreciated if one eonsiders the impasse that would result if another government should adopt the same practice, but should prescribe rates covering its trade with us differing from those our authorities prescribed for the very same trade It is fundamental that any method of control or stabilization of shipping rates, fares, and charges ir. foreign commerce must, if it is to operate satisfactorily, be formulated with die regard to the fact that the carrying of our foregi, trade takes place in part on the high seas and in part within the jurisdiction of foreign, governmenta The exer itive e mmittee on commercial pidev ? as adopted, and requested me to transmit to you, a resolution on this w,' ̧eet which, ' as my fill eoncurrency, and wich I am accordingly ser, lúg to you as an et closure to this atter I hope that the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fis cries will be good enough to give e nederation to the remarks I have expressed in the foregoing paragraphs and to the enc«med resolition For the convenience of your committee, în view of the advanced stage witch I understan i te este free has reached in its cor s. ferater n of the ship wał siły and water-carræer reg uation búis, a copy of tas ietter is being transmutted to each member. Sincerely yours, CORDELL HULL. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL POLICY, MAY 10, 1905 The Executive Committee on Commercial Policy, having noted the provisions in the pending ship subsidy bills (H. R. 7521 and S. 2582) and also in the Eastman water-carrier regulation bills (H. R. 5379 and S. 1632) granting authority to the Federal Government to regulate rates, fares, and charges of foreign ships with respect to traffic into and out of ports of the United States, desires to express the view of the committee that these provisions, if enacted into law, will prove injurious to American foreign trade, will be certain to encounter grave difficulties of enforcement, and will be an impediment to the maintenance of friendly commercial relations with other maritime countries. With respect to the effect upon our foreign trade, the committee is of the opinion that establishment of minimum rates, fares, and charges by national authority, and the rigidity of rate structure in the carrying of our foreign trade that will result, will definitely handicap our export trade in competing abroad with similar goods brought into foreign markets from countries which do not subject foreign shipping to such rate regulation. In this matter it is essential to bear in mind the fundamental distinction between rate regulation within our own boundaries or in intercoastal shipping by such a body as the Interstate Commerce Commission and such regulation as applied to international trade. With respect to the effect upon our international relations, the committee desires to stress the fact that such unilateral assumption of authority over foreign shipping will be contrary to the accepted practices of international law and in conflict with those provisions in our treaties guaranteeing in return for the right of free access of foreign shipping to American ports, free access for American shipping to foreign ports. Moreover, even though no technical violation of treaties were involved, such arbitrary assumption of regulatory powers over the rates charged by foreign vessels would be almost certain to lead to retaliatory measures in foreign countries against the ships and commerce of the United States. To the initial burdens upon our commerce would therefore be added those arising from such retaliations; and in the final outcome both American shipping and American foreign trade, upon which the prosperity of our shipping depends, instead of being assisted, would be seriously hadicapped. Hon. SCHUYLER OTIS BLAND, STATE DEPARTMENT, Washington, May 14, 1935. Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. BLAND: I enclose a copy of a note dated May 10, 1935, from the Minister of Denmark at this capital, in which are set forth observations of the Danish Government concerning certain provisions relative to the rates charged by foreign vessels in our commerce, in the ship subsidy bill (H. R. 7521) now before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. May I ask that you be good enough to have your committee give due consideration to the representations made in the Danish Minister's note. Sincerely yours, Hon. CORDELL HULL, CORDELL HULL. ROYAL DANISH LEGATION, Washington, D. C., May 10, 1935. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. SIR: With reference to my note of March 18, 1935, I have the honor to address you on the following subject: Two bills of the same tenor concerning the development of the American merchant marine, S. 2582 and H. R. 7521, have recently been introduced, respectively, in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Hearings have taken place in the Senate Committee on Commerce and the bill S. 2582 has been redrafted. In the form in which it is presently submitted to hearings (Committee Print No. 3 of Apr. 30, 1935) it contains among others the following provisions: (1) Title VII, section 701 (3) provides that paragraph (b) of section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, be amended, so that the United States Maritime Authority, proposed by the bill to be vested with the powers formerly granted the United States Shipping Board, etc., be further authorized "to prescribe and |