STATEMENT OF H. B. WALKER, PRESIDENT AMERICAN STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK

Mr. WALKER. H. B. Walker, president American Steamship Owners' Association, New York. I will leave a list, Mr. Chairman, of the membership of the association with the secretary, and the tonnage which it represents, which is 4,293,481 tons, gross tonnage, and 724 vessels.

I would like to read into the record a resolution that was adopted by the association yesterday as a result of several meetings, and which is a statement of principles and outlines the position of the associa

tion with respect to the Davis bill, known as H. R. 8361. After reading same, I would like to call upon the representatives of steamship companies in the different trades so that they might explain the conditions which exist in the different trades.

Whereas the American Steamship Owners' Association strongly indorses the principle that wherever possible American citizens should own and operate American-flag ships in American foreign trade in preference to foreign-flag ships, and especially should not operate foreign-flag ships in competition with Americanflag ships of other American citizens; and

Whereas at the same time it must be recognized that there are trades, and especially trades to the West Indies and Central America, the seasonal grain and cotton trades of the Gulf, and certain oil trades, in which it is impossible for American-flag ships not receiving the benefits of mail compensation under the merchant marine act, 1928, to be operated successfully in competition with foreign-flag ships until adequate aid is provided by the Government; and

Whereas the association believes that the discontinuance of the operation of such foreign-flag ships (whether owned or chartered) by American citizens under the aforesaid conditions might result in the surrender of such trades to foreign shipowners with no possible gain to the United States, but that, on the contrary, it would entrench foreign shipowners more securely in such trades and make it more difficult for American citizens to recapture such trades if and when it becomes possible for them to successfully operate American-flag ships therein; and Whereas there may be conditions under which it is for the best interests of the United States and development of its foreign trade that American citizens own and operate, in conjunction with their own American-flag vessels, vessels carrying the flag of other nations served in direct trades between the United States and such countries; and

Whereas there may be other conditions under which agencies for foreign shipping lines in the hands of American shipowners will be in the interest of the best development of American foreign trade: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That interests of the members of this association are so diversified and the proposed legislation, H. R. 8361, is so far-reaching in its possible effects on American shipping interests and American foreign trade, that the character of legislation, if any, which should be enacted can not be determined by the association in the time available, and that legislation should be enacted only after careful inquiry into the present situation of American shipowners and into the question as to how they will be affected by the legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Now do you desire to supplement that statement? Mr. WALKER. No; I would like to call upon Mr. Mooney, if I may, who is the president of the Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies Lines, and who can explain the situation with respect to the movement of traffic between eastern cities and the West Indies.

Mr. DAVIS. Now I want to ask Mr. Walker some questions. Mr. Walker, I have not seen the list of your members and I just ask you how many member-companies there are in your association?

Mr. WALKER. Fifty-five member-companies.

Mr. DAVIS. How many of those are engaged exclusively in the coastwise or intercoastal trade?

Mr. WALKER. Eleven.

The CHAIRMAN. And how many are engaged

Mr. WALKER. When you say coastwise, Judge, I want to give you the correct answer. Do you mean just coastwise, or intercoastal and coastwise?

Mr. DAVIS. Intercoastal and coastwise.

Mr. WALKER. Twenty-two, instead of eleven.

Mr. DAVIS. In other words that is the protected trade?
Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. REID. Is that correct, Mr. Walker? You have 28 here and you have 31

Mr. WALKER. He asked "exclusively in the coastwise and intercoastal." I have not a note on that memorandum, but I have a note on mine.

Mr. REID. How many is that?

Mr. WALKER. That would be 11 in each.

Mr. DAVIS. Now how many are engaged in both the coastwise or intercoastal, and the foreign trade?

Mr. WALKER. Forty-three.

Mr. DAVIS. How many are engaged exclusively in the foreign trade?

Mr. WALKER. There are 43 in the foreign trade. That covers the tanker lines as well as the other lines, but they are not exclusively in the foreign trade.

Mr. DAVIS. But none of your members are engaged exclusively in the foreign trade?

Mr. WALKER. Oh, yes.

Mr. DAVIS. That is what I am asking you.

Mr. WALKER. Exclusively I have not figured that out, but I can do it very quickly. Nine, exclusively in the foreign trade.

Mr. DAVIS. Now will you just give me the names of those?

Mr. WALKER. The American South African Line, American West African Line, Bliss, Dallett & Co.-that is the Red D Line, Chile Steamship Co., Export Steamship Co., New Orleans & South American Steamship Co., New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., United Fruit Co., United States Lines (Inc.).

Mr. DAVIS. That makes 10.

Mr. WALKER. Then my statement is wrong.

Mr. REID. It is 10 instead of 9?

Mr. WALKER. 10 instead of 9.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember what the attitude of these 10 was on the suggested modification of the bill-if that is what is intended by some of the language in the resolution?

Mr. WALKER. The action on the resolution which has been submitted was unanimous; therefore, they all subscribe to it.

Mr. DAVIS. Now your association made no recommendation further than that contained in this resolution?

Mr. WALKER. That is right, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. You make no specific recommendations as to phraseology, or any amendments or modifications?

Mr. WALKER. No, sir. I think that may come out of the testimony of the steamship companies that testify after me this morning. Mr. DAVIS. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of Mr. Walker? If not, Mr. Walker, will you call your witnesses.

Mr. REID. With the privilege of recalling him after hearing the other members.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Franklin D. Mooney, president of the Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name, Mr. Mooney, and the company with which you are associated?

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN D. MOONEY, PRESIDENT OF THE ATLANTIC, GULF & WEST INDIES STEAMSHIP LINES

Mr. MOONEY. Franklin D. Mooney, president, Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies Steamship Lines and subsidiary companies.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you indicate, for the purposes of the record, what those affiliated lines and subsidiaries are?

Mr. MOONEY. President of the New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., the Clyde Steamship Co., and the Mallory Steamship Co.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies Steamship Lines and its subsidiary steamship companies, which I have just mentioned, own a fleet of 51 American passenger and freight ships. They are engaged in the coastwise, the Mexican, the Cuban, Dominican, and Porto Rican trades. The New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., a subsidiary, has under construction at the present time two large 20-knot passenger and freight ships to fulfill its obligations under the 10-year mail contract awarded to it by the Postmaster General. The New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co. has one large fast passenger and freight_ship under construction, which is to be placed in the New York-Porto Rico-Santo Domingo run. That line also has a mail contract.

Mr. Chairman, I favor the principle embodied in the Davis bill (H. R. 8361) that, wherever possible, American citizens shall own and operate American-flag ships in the American foreign trade and shall not own or operate American-flag ships in competition

The CHAIRMAN. Foreign-flag ships?

Mr. MOONEY. Foreign-flag ships, in competition with Americanflag ships of other American citizens. We have had but a brief experience operating under the provisions of the merchant marine act of 1920 and 1928, and it would seem to me it would be desirable to allow a reasonable length of time to elapse before applying the provisions of this act. There are, no doubt, instances where Americans, to participate in certain foreign trades in competition with the requirements of the countries served, must own and operate ships flying the flag of one of the countries served. It may also be, for a reasonable length of time, that agency agreements and conference arrangements must be continued. To protect the American in the foreign trade, to enable him to replace with American ships those foreign ships which he is now, by reason of the cost of operation obliged to operate to maintain his place in those trades, it seems to me essential that aid to cargo ships is necessary. He must, as time goes on, provide American ships to substitute for those and, contingent upon the granting of aid, mail contracts or subvention to the ships, I favor that he divest himself of the foreign ownership or operation of those ships in those trades within a reasonable length of time. Congress has made it clear to the American shipowner it is determined that the American ship shall have its proper share of the American foreign business, and I have the utmost faith in the future of American ships in the foreign trades, contingent, as I have said before, upon additional aid to cargo ships, to substitute the foreign ships which are now employed.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Mooney, let me ask you just one or two questions. You say you approve the principle embodied in this bill.

I take it, however, you advocate postponement of the application of that principle?

Mr. MOONEY. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, Mr. Chairman, but I should apply the principle at once, contingent upon the granting, upon satisfactory assurance to the Shipping Board, the Postmaster General, or whoever it may be, that within the period of time, whichever shall be decided upon, the American shipowner shall divest himself of the ownership, operation, or affiliation of foreign interests.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Mooney, you say that the companies you represent own 61 American-flag ships?

Mr. MOONEY. Fifty-one.

Mr. DAVIS. I understood you to say 61?

Mr. MOONEY. Fifty-one; and are building three.

Mr. DAVIS. How many foreign-flag ships do your companies own? Mr. MOONEY. We own no foreign-flag ships, Judge. There is one exception in the case of a very small tugboat or tender that we own in the harbor of Progreso, which is used only for transferring passengers from the ship to shore and where there are no other tugboats and it is not in competition with any other ship.

Mr. DAVIS. And, consequently, this bill would not affect it?

Mr. MOONEY. And it must, to comply with the provisions of the Mexican Government, fly the Mexican flag.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. MOONEY. That is the only exception, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Now are any of your companies operating any foreignflag ships under charter?

Mr. MOONEY. We have at the minute, sir, three small foreign ships chartered for a period not exceeding 30 days, to be employed in Cuba and in Santo Domingo. But I am perfectly willing to say, at the conclusion of that charter, that we shall employ no more foreign ships.

Mr. DAVIS. In other words, so far as you and your companies are concerned, if this bill, as it stands, is enacted, it would not affect you adversely?

Mr. MOONEY. No, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. In so far as you and your companies are concerned, then, you have no objection to the bill in the form it now stands?

Mr. MOONEY. In principle, no sir; but I hope, as I say, to care for the other situation, that there may be aid to the cargo boats.

Mr. DAVIS. Of course we won't ever get anywhere by indorsing a bill and the principle of it, but not putting it into effect. If the principle is right, as a legislative proposal, it ought to be put into effect and it can not be put into effect except it be enacted. Now you speak about in the interests of others that the date of the commencement of it should be deferred. The primary purpose of the 1920 act and the 1928 act, was not designed to grant favors or bounties to individual companies or shipbuilders or ship operators, collectively. According to my conception, Congress would not be justified in enacting legislation of that kind and with that motive. The purpose of the legislation, as stated in section 1 of both acts, is that it is to establish and maintain an American merchant marine, capable of carrying the major portion of our commerce in times of peace, in American bottoms, and acting as a naval auxiliary in times of National emergency. I