STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. MARR, VICE PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION Mr. MARR. The declaration of policy stated in section 1 is to provide a merchant marine that shall First. Be sufficient to carry at least one-half of the foreign commerce and to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of national commerce at all times. We have enough ships on the Great Lakes to handle all of the foreign commerce and more, too, even without sharing it with the ships of Canadian registry. We also have adequate shipping service on all routes on the Lakes now established or that can be established at any time in the future. Second. Under treaty with Great Britain, neither country may maintain a navy on the Lakes; therefore we need no naval auxiliary, but we have it if a naval auxiliary is required. Third. The United States fleet, which is the major fleet on the Lakes, is owned and operated by citizens of the United States and, so far as I know, has never called upon the Government for a loan and does not, and cannot under the provisions of the bill, receive any benefits from mail contracts. Fourth. Ship construction and port facilities have gone hand in hand in providing the most up-to-date and most expeditious shipping facilities in the world; and the ships are modernly equipped, safe as human ingenuity can make them, of types best suited to the trades, and manned by skilled officers and seamen; and the percentage of citizen personnel naturally is high, for geographical reasons. The benefits to the merchant marine, as proposed in title III, apply only to ocean-mail routes and ocean-mail contracts; and those of title V are extended to vessels engaged in the foreign commerce. The ships on the Great Lakes operate to a comparatively small extent in Canadian trade, many of them not at all. We have no problems that call for the benefits, the investigation, the regimentation, nor the directive features of this bill. The Shipping Act of 1916, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the Merchant Marine Act of 1928 are not applicable to the Great Lakes trade except as to common carriers, and the Intercoastal Act of 1933 is, of course, not applicable at all. The provisions of titles VI and VII are therefore not applicable to the bulk freight trades of the Great Lakes, except as to section 702, relating to the interrelation of rail and water traffic. In the bulk movements of iron ore, grain, and limestone, there is no community of interest between the rails and the ships. Under these circumstances we believe that it is not the intention of the President, nor of the Congress, nor of the authors of the bill to provide for shipping on the Great Lakes the benefits desired to be provided for the merchant marine, and that therefore the Great Lakes should not be subject to the inhibitions and exactions imposed by the bill. Title VIII of the bill proposes certain legislation with reference to seamen. While we concur in principle with some of the provisions of title VIII, we recognize in some of them heavy and, we believe, unwise burdens upon, American shipping. The requirements of scetion S02 I believe to be impracticable and ettructive. The shipping interests are as anxious as the Governit to have able seamen in fact as well as in name. The officers 1 the ships are more interested than anyone else in having real, .t, trained, able seamen; but in these days of steam and motor -'s, seamanship is not what it was in the days of sail, and the lak of leadership in the Morro Castle should not be la d at the door f the sailors. Whether they were trained starien or not, the testi1. v, as I rad it, pointed the finger of blame to the officers rather སྨཱ, 。 * to the sailors, Here is so little of real seamanship required on a Great Lakes stem vessel that any officer of a lake ship could teach any average i, ir 5 months aboard a ship, anything he needs to know, D Ite pent requirement of Is months on deck as a prerequisite for atue se am în's certificate is in itself a serious handicap in attract ts, ps the kind of material desired and is the real reason for so ST. h fraud in the procuring of certificates. To serve 18 months on pek means to serve three seasons on the Lakes. Now, to add the further requirement that with all this training in practice a seaman 1st go to school in order to obtain an able seaman's rating and ert in ate is not helping us to obtain real seaman but is putting a st bung blo k in the way of our doing so. If this section is pern. tted to remain in the bill, then the law requiring 18 months' service as ordinary seaman should be repealed, as this provision the school certificate and not the man's experience the prete for an able seaman's certificate, Section 805 does not fit in with the operations of shipping on the Great Lakes. As stated to this committee last week, we have no comrisoners on the Lakes and no United States consuls at Canadian ports, so the requirements of the bill as written cannot be carried , and due to the rapid turn-around of our ships in port, it is not ble to pay off, sign on, make the elaborate entries contemplated e discharge book before a commissioner or any other person 21 ated to act as a commissioner. We favor the use of discharge books, and there would be no diffie, ty in the Secretary of Commerce finding a suitable agency to issue tes to the lake sailors, but the delay to shipping if the hiring, dis ring, and recording are to be done in the presence of any shore ay would result in the serious disorganization of the present ent lake operation. This question of commiss oners on the Lakes has been under dis-on for a number of years, and no man has as yet been able to nate with any assurance of accuracy what the cost of delays woud be if the hiring, discharging, and recording were done in the resence of commissioners. The estimates have been mere guesses, but the most frequent guess has been that it would slow up operations one third. On that basis I make the following rough calculation on the basis of a normal season's movement of the four principal ommodities: I ** pre 50000,000 tons, at 70 cents.. 11, 63 90 000 tons, at 50 cents....... 350000000 bushels, at 1'2 cents. Total freight - $35,000,000 17,500,000 5, 230, 060 7,200,000 64,950,000 The loss of one-third oper assuming a slowing up of only bulk-freight ships of six and am quite sure, is more than let alone the recent period w red. I have attended all of the chant marine and have hear yourself, Mr. Chairman, .. of our merchant marine. ! torials, and the utterances down on the same subject. all these pleas for a restor I have in my files up to in this Congress which marine. Every one of t on the shipping business. additional crews, for grest for added equipment, fo dozens of other things. designed to aid or favor under discussion today, 2: burdens that are impract I give to every Congre presentation of bills whi believes that the object to that whatever expense i and justified. But, Mr. laws? What if any no submit to you that the it would capsize before stability test. The bill before us prop even those ships that are nor bill. I have given you an believe a conservative onesions of the discharge-book sem We do not fear the compet do other disturbances that the agricultural, iron-mining, com the country. We are not even grain. Two-thirds of the gra dian origin and although we grain a distance of nearly a cents, the competition of Russ making heavy inroads in the den In the coal trade, our exports neighborhood of 17,000,000 tons moved by lake. Canada is now quantities coal from Nova Scotia, Our greatest menace, however, mining and our steel industries of As stated to you last week, the Un of making 50 percent of the world ས་ rt of thes as made from iron ore brought down the Great Lakes, - row a fact that not any of the Lake Superior iron ore goes to mares east of the Allegheny Mountains. Iron ore from Chile can i down at the eastern furnaces at a cost per ton of iron for as or less than the American ore, and any disturbance of the costs verg the Lake Superior ore threatens to close the Lake Sumes and affect adversely the steel-producing plants west of Allegheny Mountains. Jatres J. Hill said: ཨ༞ ླ ten production of the highest grade of ore in these mines (the fron ore nás of M! hagan Wisconsin, and Minnesota) nnd the low rates of transpor*. 1 tke Erie ports have done more to bu ld us the fron at d steel indusf the United States than all the tariffs that have ever been placed upon ata une books, and today, if these nudes were closed, our superiority in the <ated steel trade of the world would be gone forever. We fear that any legislation which disturbs the delicate balance of national industrial conditions as provided by the cheap transpor"ation of iron ore, coal, and grain on the Great Lakes will have dis astrous effects upon not only lake shipping but upon these major fors in our industrial prosperity, and we urge upon Congress the It oughtful consideration of any legislation that tends to throw t of balance the costs of lake transport. E CHAIRMAN. Any questions, gentlemen! Thank you very much, Mr. Marr. I want to incorporate in the record some papers that Congressman Ericam sent to me with the request that they be made a part of the -i dealing with matters contained in the bill under consideration, a i also a statement by Mr. John Possehl, general president of the International Union of Operating Engineers. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record as Statrast of Hon George BURNHAM, A ROPESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On April 1, 1935. I requested that in your consideration De Pesader t's message of March 4, 1935, to Congress (H Doc 118) dealing with 'Le merchant marine and ship subsidies, you incorporate in whatever jeginleton vou may approve the principle and proposal contained in a letter and zgested amendment or bill from Col. B. C ́Allin, director of the port of Stockt. On if, which I want you with my said letter April 15, 1965 you introduced the bill (H. R 7521) to develop a strong Amarich merchant marine, to promote the commerce of the United States, to a 1 rational defense, and for other purposes Since the introdu tion of wid Your committee has I understand, been holding hearings thereon, wh h wat confinue through ut the coming week at least. The suggested amendment sent to you with my letter of April 1, referred to there is as follows "That to steamship line operating vessels belonging to the United States, or purchased or being purchased from the Urated States or any agency thereof; or any steariship company receiving from the United States or any agency thereɗ s writmicly or payment through contract for the carrying of maiis, or otherwise, **t belong to any conference or association relieved of the Sherman Act which "her through official acts or policies prevents or attempts to prevent, either directly or indirectly, the serving of any port within the continental limits of the United States located on any improvement project designed for the accommodation of ocean-going vessels, authorized by Congress or through it by any other agency of the Federal Government; nor shall any steamship company receiving from the United States or any agency thereof any subsidy or payment through contract for the carrying of the mail, or otherwise, enter into any agreement, understanding, or other arrangement to abide by or concur in the acts or policies of any such conference or association." I am informed that the California State Senate and Assembly, on April 25, 1935, unanimously passed a memorial requesting the inclusion of the abovequoted proposed amendment in any legislation approved by your committee. The adoption by your committee of this legislation is vitally important to the city and port of San Diego against which there is now assessed an arbitrary of $2.50 per ton; also to a number of other ports that are discriminated against by the attitude particularly of the trans-Pacific conference, called the "Pacific Westbound Conference." In this connection, I would like to quote a recent article appearing in San Diego's leading morning newspaper, the San Diego Union, under date of March 30, 1935, as follows: "CONFERENCE ACTS TO RESTRICT SHIP TRADE OF HARBOR "Once more a conference of steamship operators has lowered the boom* on San Diego. "Steamship row was agog yesterday over the latest action against local trade, the effect of which is to transfer from San Diego to San Pedro a promising trade just getting on its feet-the direct shipment of local commodities to the United Kingdom. "The Pacific-European Conference, most of whose members are alien-flag lines, has ruled that ships may no longer call at San Diego to lift European cargo unless there is sufficient cargo to produce a revenue of $1,500 for each ship. The effect is to shut off the recently developed trade in fruit juices and extracts from this port to London which has been bringing at least one ship a month into San Diego, providing a neat addition to port revenues and to the income of local stevedores. As there never has been such a shipment coming up to $1,500 in revenue, and there is little liklihood of the possibility of concentrating enough cargo to reach that figure, it virtually shuts out this form of foreign trade, and forces its diversion by truck to San Pedro. 66 BATTLE ON NEW FRONT "The question of discriminating against San Diego by steamship conferences has been one of long standing. Ships bound to the Orient may call here to lift two commodities-scrap iron and bulk gypsum. If they lift any other cargo while in port here they must add a penalty of $2 a ton-described as an arbitrary or move the cargo to San Pedro and load it there. This particular one is the subject of a protest by the city which still is before the Federal authorities. "Meanwhile, the harbor traffic department has other worries on its hands. After several years of work it succeeded in getting into the laws pertaining to certain trades the proviso that no conference could stop one of its member lines from calling to lift cargo, at terminal rates, from any port on which public funds had been expended. Now comes the Eastman bill to regulate steamship and other facilities, which entirely eliminates this protection. However, Representative George Burnham is reported as working on an amend ment which would bar any line receiving a subsidy from membership in any conference which sought to keep its member lines out of any port which had been developed at public expense." Reference in the above-quoted article to my working on an amendment which would bar any line receiving a subsidy from membership in any conference which sought to keep its member lines out of any port which has been developed at public expense, is, apparently, in respect to the suggested amendment sent you with my letter of April 1, and first quoted above. This action was taken by me in the belief that, owing to the President's message of March 4, 1935, referred to above, action on earlier bills providing for the regulation of the transportation of passengers and property by water carriers, growing out of the recommendations of the administration through the Federal Coordinator of Transportation, Hon. Joseph B. Eastman (H. R. 5379 and S. 1632), would be deferred until the matters of the merchant marine were disposed of. |