prompt action is essential: therefore, flexibility in the rate structure is of the essence. In our experience a conference of various steamship companies is, by its very nature, slow to act, often reluctant to act, especially on a reduction, and we need an independent steamship company who will give us the necessary reductions on a day's notice, to meet the highly competitive conditions under which we are forced to operate these days. We trust we have made clear to you the danger of the above provision in this proposed bill, and the harm it may do to the foreign commerce of the United States. In view of same, we hope you will see fit to modify same to meet the exigencies of the case. Yours respectfully. AMERICAN TRADING CO., INC., SEAMAN'S LEGISLATION WASHINGTON, D. C., May 13, 1935. Hon. S. O. BLAND, Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Concerning H. R. 7521, merchant marine bill, of which I spoke to you briefly the other day: Title VIII, section 2, page 49, provides "That in all merchant vessels of the United States of more than one hundred tons gross, excepting those navigating rivers, harbors, bays, and sounds exclusively", the three-watch system shall be enforced. The purpose of this language is obviously to not require the enforcement of the three-watch system on boats in the protected water where the boats have always been subject to the rule of the Bureau of Navigation requiring not more than 13 hours in any 24-hour day, and where the rule of 6-hour alternate watches has always been observed. The language of the bill, including as it does the word "exclusively", does not, however, carry out this purpose. Along the protected waters of the Gulf there are over 350 small operations which serve a large public and which boats never go to sea, but in their operations they navigate rivers, bayous, lakes, bays, sounds, harbors, and canals. For example, the Coast Transportation Co., of which I am a part owner, operates two small boats making at least two regular sailings per week each, between New Orleans, Mobile and Pensacola. The route traverses the New Orleans Inner Harbor Canal, Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Borgne, Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay, the Intracoastal Canal, and Pensacola Bay. I am thoroughly familiar with these small operations. For about 2 years I have been chairman of what is known as the "Gulf Inland Waterways Conference," a body organized to deal with the National Recovery Administration when the Shipping Code was under consideration. Most of these operations are small, but in the aggregate they are of importance and value to the public in a region where there are few roads or railroads. This is particularly true of south Louisiana. Some of these boats still carry the United States mails. These boats have neither the accommodations, the need, or the revenues to support the three watch system. Its arbitrary enforcement would be destructive of the business and services of substantially all of these operations. Yet the bill as now drafted would surely lead to a demand for such enforcement by the representatives of certain of the organized waterway crafts. The original wording of the Shipping Act of 1916 confining its operation to vessels on the high seas and the Great Lakes would not cover this situation, for that act has been so construed as to confer jurisdiction to the limit of the tides. These operations are largely carried on upon tidal waters. If the word "exclusively" is regarded as essential, then the exception should apply to "those navigating rivers, bayous, harbors, lakes (other than the Great Lakes), bays, sounds, and canals." Otherwise the obvious purpose will not be carried out and many small operations will be put in immediate jeopardy. Will you not give this change of language your sympathetic consideration? Very respectfully, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C Dran Six Regarding the bill, H R 7521, I had hoped to be in Washir gton when the hear; gx before your eommittee rach tite VIII I wond like to give you a reset, n on one detail which I consider of importance. On page 40, hse 9, I woudke to add after the word "attached We following *together with the name and add fress of his next of kin ‘, so tat the sentence reads “Sich book shall have a datingishing to attber, description, fi gerprint, and photograph of the seaman firmus attached, together with the tame and address of his next of kin, and shali est tain, etc i have been connected with the emergency rejef of senileti since October 1931. In the next 2 years nearly 12.000 if forest wamen were interviewed and given fw-i and lowrigg In November 1953 thus work was tra' «ferred to the trai sient division of the FERA which operates in New York City through the New York State TERA We have given service to severni to,sard more scamen in this latter period, so that our experience covers about 18.900 different men. From this experience we have learned that when an emergency arises, the fact that our system of identification includes the name of the next of kin enables us to give this information to authorized personis, which is most heipful. In addition, we are sure that the most disadvantageous factor in a seaman's life is that he drifta away from his home ties and that within a few years these ties may be absolute;v lost When a scaman is 40 years oid or more, he can seidem give an adiress where any relative can be reached. He will be greativ hoped to keep in touch with his family and friends if this information is kept up to date. It is not efficient that the central record mentioned in section B on page 42 should contain the address of the next of kini, because, in case of emergency, it is Lot accessible. DEAR Mr BLAND 1 am writing you another letter today, advising that the execitive committee of this organization has gone on record as approving HR 7521 and companion Senate bill (ship subs, 1y bias. in pri eiple At the same time it was suggested that you might desire to give nor aderation to elarging line 12 page 26, section 512(b), so na to read “Naval ofheers of the United States on active or inactive iists may volunteer for service The question was also raised as to whether or not provisions of section 802, page 3× lites 3.9 inelusive, with respect to the issuance of able seamen ́s cert.hca's was conditioned wholly upon certificate showing trailing it, me hon im cự whether ti as was one condition, and the present pinti of issuing such A. Beert eates upon the completion of 1 year's service at sea, would cor tinue to be recog Yours very truly, HM THOMPSON SAILORS HAVEN, Charlestown, Mass, Apr 26, 1937 MR. CHAIRMAN and Gentlemen of the CommITTLE We oppose the passage of HR 7521, because we feel very strongly that no legislation sho iii be enacted making it possible for the slupbunder and stapowner to receive Federal money in any form untui provision has been male to develop American crews, efficient, well disciplined, thoroughly competent to meet war tille con. litions, crews having loyalty to their country and to their profession, living and working under such conditions that that most important factor known as "morale" will be very high. The provisions of H. R. 7521 are such that once again we attempt to build a merchant marine by constructing ships, giving the owner and the builder every consideration. Ships are worthless and helpless without crews. Our first aim must be to create living and working conditions aboard ships which are American in fact and will attract Americans to the sea. Respectfully submitted, PHILIP F. KING, Assistant Superintendent. SHIP CONSTRUCTION Hon. SCHUYLER OTIS BLAND, GIELOW-INCORPORATED, New York City, March 19, 1935. Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. BLAND: Mr. H. H. Brown, editor of Marine Engineering aad Shipping Age, in a letter to you dated March 14, 1935, referred to the writing of this letter which accompanies "A Proposal for a North Atlantic Fleet Under the American Flag", containing some facts and recommendations which I am offering for your consideration. Mr. Brown's letter to you dated February 21, 1935, has referred to the proposi tion in general and which was presented by the writer in an article in the January (1935) issue of Marine Engineering and Shipping Age, and amplified by editorial comment, in the same issue. A copy of the magazine was sent to you with that letter. It has seemed well to include in this presentation some of the contents of the letter of February 21 and of the above-mentioned magazine article, yet all in the above references are quite relevant to the case. Summarizing the subject we find: 1. The present service on the Atlantic includes only two modern American ships which alone cannot maintain a complete regular service but which ships are acknowledged to be successful. 2. When America has had representative ships on the Atlantic they have been well patronized. 3. The present tendency in first-class travel is definitely to speeds of about 30 knots and in this class of ships, which will carry a large part of the trade, the United States has none, while each of the European maritime countries is represented by ships of nearly if not fully that speed. Such ships are considered extremely desirable and important as naval auxiliaries. 4. To meet the needs of this country for prestige, adequate service, and representation on the premiere trade route of the world, and much needed units for national defense there are proposed two 31-knot ships of moderate passengercarrying capacity for a weekly express service to Channel ports in England and France and one cabin ship to supplement the Manhattan and Washington which might perhaps need some modification to increase their speed so the three could adequately maintain a weekly cabin service to Channel ports and Germany. Such a fleet would doubtless be the best on the Atlantic and would positively attract much travel. Nothing comparable to it has existed under the American flag since the days of the old American Line around 1895. 5. The carrying capacity of the first-class ships of today is more than that of what we may consider the first-class ships existing in 1939, the two proposed ships included. 6. Engineering advances place the United States in an ideal position to build new fast ships which will be superior and more efficient than the fast ships now coming out which latter are built as per the engineering of 7 years ago. This country is amply able to construct such ships for it has demonstrated its ability to design, build, and operate successful ships in other services. 7. The cost of this project will be a good investment not only in peace time but specially so if we ever needed such ships in an emergency. American travel money should be spent in this country till the traveler gets on foreign soil and the advent of this fleet would retain here large sums now going to foreign countries bef, re the passenger gets there * The building of such a fleet of three slips which might cost around $75,000,000, would inerte tally give employment to many craftsmen in varied lines of and ‚stry all over this country Iserefore it seems desirable that the forthcoming ship subsidy bill include provision with adequate Government aid for the bu iding and onerating by a private company of at least the three ships proposed in. no. 4 for the completion of a minimum adeq Late Amer can-flag fleet for the North Atlantic service. Lue ataportance of this proposition seems to deserve the most caref il constructive tight While I know the time may be stort before you may have to introduce the prospective bill in Congress I believe the thought of a committee as propose i euld help to quickly ervstallize the idens into a definite form that would be accef table to you for inclusion in the proposed legisistion I ́ere may be many thong' ta arise in regard to this project and if you think further good can be accomplished by a dise issión i st all be glad to have such with you at any time you may think well to designate Very sincerely, FOGAR P TRANK Proposal For A North Atlantic Fleet UndeR THE AMERICAN Frag It a well first to consi fer certain facts which lead up to this proposal and that wi, heip set forth the desirability of defivate action at this time 1. HIGH SPOTS IN THAND-ATLANTIC HISTORY IN THE PAST 40 TRANS 1- 1891 President. Harrison after de 1 the impesta't ceremony of rant og the Auer an flag on Use Caly of New York When t formerly belonging to the Iman Lie and under the highest flag, wire transferred to the old American. Late 1. transfer to Usate 1 States registry. WAN mas ponit le by a special act of Congress on con, 1 fion, that two hea 1 f at rast equal tonnage an. 1 spev 1 be 5.3 in. this coat try Aaret 1895 Cramps but the St. Lous and the St Praiard Ameri a ? ud for a ps of about ¿lato's speed the average top speed of their time, a con titi n that for a period. of 40 years has not occurred uenia At a's at Pus time I gs.¦) „lt the Lianas 1 Car མསྨིན་རངའི་aན་སྙི་སྙི¢se t&» 』r་དོབན་q།aelv་vears aftion cet;tars(at# xts ལྷའོarདོ་』 °aettlu ?%r!ii{est srtic Ater H nil, si Kron it with the Destich,14 Krokuranz W.. nzessin Cecilte all of about 22 kričita steed རྙིང་མ་རིཎྜལ In 1907 Fog'and made what is permanfebiggest alvare in rav gason when the Luxilonia and Ma treinta of 25 khots spwe-1 were broug ́t These were the first large imers to be propeded by turbine the first quaİ – Title morew liners and they had a power double that of am previous lirer. Furthermore the derion to me turtles was tus fe as a re it of tex's on the 『ard་, ༔་ཞུནt[b otrivawut12ofeuetkrzToriakn #Ph liugnfa«4།Teཝ་ ཆས་ *g* l‡m pasuje Erg snd loaned tie Canari Lane, treat owners, a sit $15 000 000 at 241⁄2-nercent interest and agreed to an ann ial #itsady of mout 50.000 The Mauretania thair faired her a iprema v on the Asar tie for over 20 years and was not retired until last year after 27 years of eur u=w*% % ས" Germany in 1913 made the entry into tre AtaffLC WIN e of te list of the Microter ships, the Imperator (now the Berengaria, abit 910 feet jong, all of Atwist 24 knots spred The Ayutants of about the same size and swexi zaŮ ༄། རིགསཔ』, ལa[ • n! སྙནP The record German “big slit)", Vaterland, row the Leriathan, cate o t in 194 and is row over 20 vents or 1 During the World War of ec irse nothing was diren e fora me vests aftersari the type of At antic service was not m »i mrazed Ile German, steamer bumƏR pretični v a sister ship to the Vaterice 5, www.compeful tunelover to bogard, a: twaen Coesfect to the W?, te star Jane note Micer In 19.3 the Levathar, which was car greatest and most va is je transport during the war, was returned to the Atlantic phases ger servies of the turn sewy organized United States lines and Amerien was glad to acclaim her the " U seen of the Atlantie ́ American & freeiv patronized †‚a ship flying their own. Dag their first "big shap" since the days of the St. Louis a à St Paws over 20 ye before. But while the United States Lines had a fleet it consisted of old ships, reconditioned, and no two alike. No homogeneous service could be maintained. The Leviathan was a "lone star" even though one of the best patronized ships on the Atlantic. In 1929 Germany sent across the Atlantic the Bremen of about 27-knot speed which immediately took the speed record and this was followed in 1930 by the Europa which ships, built by money said to have been borrowed in the United States, were slightly smaller than the "big ships" of 1913 and 1914 but about 3 knots faster and they promptly took the cream of the trade. They represented a great engineering advance over the Mauretania which had for over 20 years carried the famous "blue ribbon". The Bremen and Europa, while not being able to make weekly sailings on on account of their natural inclusion of a German terminal port, a day's run from the Channel ports, have nevertheless been successful ships and doubtless their speed has been the most important factor in this. The year 1932 saw the advent of the Italian liner Rex, which in 1933 made a record run on the Atlantic and is now the holder of that coveted blue ribbon. The French liner Normandie to come out this year and the Cunard-White Star liner Queen Mary to enter the service in 1935 will again advance the Atlantic time table, but each will have done it at a great increase in size that is a decidedly questionable feature. These two ships were designed in 1928 and 1929 and their construction was held up or proceeded at a reduced rate during part of the depression period. While just coming out, they represent the engineering achievement of about 6 or 7 years ago. In 1932 the United States Lines which were taken over by the International Mercantile Marine brought out the Manhattan and in 1933 the Washington. These are noteworthy American ships of the cabin class and are well patronized and are understood to be financially successful. They were widely heralded in this country as the first outstanding American ships for many years. Prestige on the Atlantic has always been with the countries that had the fast ships and those ships have attracted to their line much patronage that would doubtless have gone elsewhere. Prestige is a national advertisement. The outstanding conclusion is that at the times when the United States had representative ships in the Atlantic they were well patronized by Americans. We had the semblance of a fleet in 1895 in the old American Line and we had a successful "solitaire" in the Leviathan in 1923 to 1929, but with the advent in each case of faster ships by other nations we lost our prestige. The brief reviews show that we made no effort to keep up our Atlantic fleet while other nations, well subsidized, did that thing. 2. AMERICAN ACTIVITY With the exception of the Red Star Line steamers Finland and Kroonland built by Cramps in 1902 no American ships for trans-Atlantic service were built between 1925 (St. Louis and St. Paul) and 1932 (Manhattan). During this time we had made great strides in other lines of engineering and industrial effort and the facilities for shipbuilding in this country were, in the early part of that period, directed toward the upbuilding of a Navy which contained outstanding ships. In the latter period after the passage of the Jones-White bill there were some excellent ocean-going ships built but not for the trans-Atlantic service. In 1915 Cramps turned out two ships, Great Northern (now H. F. Alexander) and Northern Pacific, the first ocean-going ships 500 feet long and capable of 23 knots sustained sea speed. These ships performed excellent transport service during the war and one made a record round trip to Brest, France, which is believed to have been unbroken till the advent of the Bremen in 1929. In 1928 there was considerable activity over the establishment of a fleet of ships capable of making the crossing in 4 days but the plan was abandoned. When the United States Lines were transferred to private ownership in 1929 it was with the understanding that they would build two so-called "superliners." Mr. Theodore E. Ferris, of. New York City, was appointed the naval architect to design these ships. At that time the writer became associated with Mr. Ferris. About 18 months was devoted to the development of a pair of ships that for safety would have surpassed anything now on the Atlantic-being able to float with any four compartments open to the sea, a condition never before imposed on any prospective ship designed for merchant service. This was a requirement of the Navy who examined the final plans and gave an unconditional approval of |