« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
The CHAIRMAN. There are quite a number of those concessions in Great Britain, are there not?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I am not able to say that.
The CHAIRMAN. Take, for instance, this from one of your publications:
Imperial preference policies (such as Ottawa agreement) comprises effective but an immeasurable stimulus to British shipping. Examples of restrictions on empire trade which affect American shipping, and which are not offset by counteracting restrictions on United States foreign trade are as follows:
United Kingdom: Empire goods (e. g., Canadian grain, and so forth) transshipped through United States are entitled to preferential treatment by United Kingdom only when proved to the satisfaction of British customs authorities that such goods have been consigned from or grown or produced in a part of the British Empire. This has diverted Canadian traffic to Canadian ports, especially grain, which previously moved in transit in large volume through the United States. The American Trade Commissioner at Vancouver, British Columbia, reported in March 1933 that the past chairman of the Vancouver Grain Exchange had stated that only 19 percent of Canadian grain was shipped through the United States in 1932, compared with 40 percent in 1929.
Canada : An additional discount of one-tenth of the duty is granted by Canada to most British goods that are entitled to preference when such goods are conveyed directly to Canada without transshipment (except at a British port),
Australia : In the calculation of value for duty purposes in Australia, there is included as much of the inland freight in the country of primary origin as is insolved in shipping the goods from the point of origin to the nearest point of exit from the country. This has the tendency, so far as the United States is concerned, to favor Canadian railways, ports, and ships at the expense of American. There is an exception in the case of Canadian products for which no greater amounts of inland freight charges are included in the value for duty in Australia than the actual amount of the freight charges that would be incurred if the goods were forwarded from the point of origin to the nearest point of exit.
The coastal trade of the United Kingdom is not restricted to British ships. Construction of new passenger vessels for the Cunard Co. is aided by Government underwriting that part of the insurance not absorbed by commercial underwriters. The insurance rate is to be 142 percent. plus 212 percent of that rate. The amount of Government share is £1,780,000 $8.650.000 at par) for which a premium of £24,767 ($120,367 at par) was collected for coverage for a period of 3 years from January 31, 1931.
Those are notes from your publication on the subject to which you refer,
Mr. SAUGSTAD. And on that question, Mr. Chairman, this general principle now under discussion in France is discussed in the French press as the “French Ottawa.” The whole question of imperial preference in the movement of French colonial products in French ships has been under discussion since 1931, when the first bill was introduced in the Chamber of Deputies providing that bounties according to certain colonial exports be granted only to products moving in vessels of French nationalities. These preferences for transport of French colonial products under certain conditions became law, on August 6, 1933. Because of the contingent basis of the law, the whole principle again became the subject of debate Then the budget of the Merchant Marine Ministry came before the Chamber of Deputies in November 1934. Trade and shipping relations between France and French colonies, with special reference to preference, was to be discussed at the Franco-Colonial Conference
opened in Paris on December 3, 1934, under the chairmanship of the President of the Republic.
The whole thought behind this legislation is simply this: Certain colonial goods, as stated before, receive certain aid. The purpose of the proposed legislation is that that aid shall not be granted until the goods move in French ships, and the governors of the various French departments and colonies are authorized to issue orders covering each case.
The CHAIRMAN. And I call attention to this statement appearing in your publication:
Some of the more important products shipped from French Indo-China affected by the new law are rubber, sisal, and coffee. This law affects rubber exported to the United States, since the colony is indirectly supplied with French shipping facilities through this port.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIROVICH. Does not the American Export & Import Co. do a great deal of business with Russia and in the Black Sea ?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Somewhat. I am not familiar with the export operations in Russia or what trade they carry.
Mr. CULKIN. They have some ships, of course, some freight tonnagel Pardon me for interrupting you.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. If you desire, we will make a statement for the record later on.
Mr. CULKIN. Yes; I will waive the question for the present.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask in that connection before you go into that
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. There are British colonies also that place subsidies on their ships, such as Canada and Australia?
Mr. Saugstad. Canada pays today about $2,000,000 a year subsidies. New Zealand pays—I won't state without checking the record on that. I think it is about £22,000. And Australia pays, as I stated yesterday, £120,000.
Mr. CULKIN. That Canada item is $2,000,000 ?
Mr. CULKIN. Does that go to the trans-Atlantic trade or is it confined to the Lake trade?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. It goes to the trans-Atlantic, the trans-Pacific, and the trades to the West Indies and to Africa.
Mr. CULKIN. It does not include anything to the Great Lakes?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. It includes a certain number of freight sailings outward from Canadian ports. And I might say that Canadian subsidies have doubled in the past 4 years possibly more than that.
The question has been raised here about personnel, especially in connection with the British situation. I may refer to that in a general way a little later, but while we are dealing with Great Britain it might be helpful to the committee if I state for the record certain statements about the National Maritime Board and also a paragraph or two about British personnel so far as insurance is concerned. I assume that the organization is still practically the same. The booklet is entitled “ National Organization of British Shipping."
Mr. CULKIN. Something you wrote yourself?
Mr. Saugstad. Yes, sir; in 1928. So there may be some change in the set-up, but there will probably be none in the National Maritime Board.
The interests of shipowners in all questions except labor questions are crystallized in the United Kingdom principally in the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. The owners' interests in labor questions are represented by the Shipping Federation; that is, the Shipping Federation is the owner representative in any labor dispute. The shipowners' legislative interests are guarded by the shipowners' parliamentary committee. On the labor side are five principal national labor associations, which represent the departments of sea-going personnel. In the National Maritime Board owners and labor meet through equal representation. The constitution of the National Maritime Board specifies :
“1. That with a view to securing closer cooperation between the em ployers and employed of the British Mercantile Marine in the maintenance of maritime supremacy of the British Empire, there shall be constituted a board known as the National Maritime Board', and the district panels, for the purpose of
"A. The prevention and adjustment of differences between shipowners and masters, seamen, and apprentices.
“B. The establishment, revision, and maintenance of a national standard rate of wages and approved conditions of employment in the mercantile marine.
*C. The establishment of a single source of supply of sailors and firemen jointly controlled by the employers and the employed."
In 1920 the National Maritime Board came into final form as a joint organization between shipowners and sea personnel, which at present deals with wage scales and working conditions. During the war period a joint board was organized to handle labor disputes in which the Government took an active part. Since that time the Government gradually withdraw from active participation and the National Maritime Board is now solely a joint board of owners, as represented by the Shipping Federation and Employers' Associations of Liverpool and sea personnel, as represented by the various labor organizations.
The National Maritime Board functions under two chairmen, one the president of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, the other the chairman of the Shipping Federation. The chairmen preside at alternate meetings. The Board consists of 5 panels : 1, masters ; 2, navigation officers; 3, engineering officers; 4, sailors and firemen, and 5, catering department.
Each panel sits separately and independently to determine matters affecting the grade for which the panel is constituted. The entire board sits once every 6 months or more often, as may be required. For the purpose of the meetings of the board each side is entitled to 60 representatives.
Mr. SIROVICH. Sixty? Mr. SAUGSTAD. Sixty representatives. A refinement of the Central Board is the organization of some 20 district maritime boards to deal with and recommend action upon local matters in the principal ports.
Mr. Culkin. Obviously, the proposition of collective bargaining is recognized in that service, is it not?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. The effect of that organization, Mr. Congressman, is to throw into that board and before that board all argument, all controversy.
Mr. CULKIN. And there is joint representation there?
Mr. CULKIN. Equal representation?
During the discussion on the floor of the House of Commons last December, at the time the tramp shipping bill was under consideration, there was a good deal of criticism offered by members of the employment on British ships of foreigners, and what they discussed as * colored " labor. That means other than white labor.
The CHAIRMAN. The lascars?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. The lascars, Chinese, and others. The criticism was directed at the Board of Trade on the assumption that the Board of 'Trade was the responsible body to take care of matters of that kind.
Mr. SIROVICH. What is the Board of Trade equivalent to in this country; to the Shipping Board ?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. The board of trade is equivalent to the-I should say more nearly to the Department of Commerce than any other department. It really deals with mines, which is a Commerce Department function here; commercial relations and treaties, which is a State Department function here; petroleum supplies or development, which is a Commerce responsibility here; overseas trade development and intelligence, which is Commerce here-I am stating first the board of trade functions--industries and manufactures, which here would probably be a combination of Commerce and Federal Trade; industrial property, Interstate Commerce, Patent Office, which is now in Commerce; statistics, which is largely in Commerce; mercantile marine, which is now in Commerce; companies, which is possibly Federal Trade.
Mr. Sirovich. In other words, it is a combination of various bodies to look after commerce and industry?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Commerce and industry, and it has in it certain departments that practically deal with the same problems that our Bureau of Navigation deals with. That is, it concerns itself with sea-going tonnage in questions of the national factors of safety of life at sea, load lines, and all such matters.
The CHAIRMAN. Does it not deal with regulatory matters also, as to rates and things of that kind ?
Mr. Salgstad. No, sir; I do not think so. It might by custom, but I do not think it does by law.
The CHAIRMAN. I have often noticed the board of trade could act overnight on certain shipping matters, and for that reason it was more effective.
Mr. Saugstad. I am not qualified to discuss the operations of the board of trade.
Mr. SIROVICH. Who appoints the board of trade?
Mr. SAUGSTAD). I do not know that, but I do know they have a president who serves continually as the president of the board of trade.
Mr. SIROVICII. Is it an elective office?
The CHAIRMAN. There was a paper inserted in some of the former hearings dealing with the functions of the Board of Trade at that time vhich I will try to find.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. If you would like to have a statement on the Board of Trade and its present functions I will be very glad to make a summary of the Board of Trade functions from the Board of Trade Journal itself, and give you that up to date.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to have that in the record.
Mr. WELCH. Does the Board of Trade participate in the settlement of labor disputes?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. No, sir.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. The National Maritime Board; unless it might reach a position where the National Maritime Board becomes inoperative, and I was coming to that when we were discussing the general situation before the House of Commons, in regard to the debate in the House of Commons last December.
In answer to the criticism which arose in the House, Dr. Burgin, who is the parliamentary secretary of the Board of Trade, appeared before the House after the House had resolved itself into a committee to consider the tramp-ship subsidy bill, and made the following statement on the National Maritime Board which may help to clear our own understanding of it. He said:
The National Maritime Board, as the committee may know (referring to the House of Commons as a committee) is the Whitley Council of the Shipping Industry. It is a nonstatutory body containing representatives of the various sections of the mercantile marine, deck oilicers, engineers, seamen, and firemen, and its object is to discuss and to settle by agreement rates of wages and conditions of employment on British ships who sign on their crews in the United Kingdom.
Let us be quite clear where the National Maritime Board begins and where it ends. The National Maritime Board does not deal with ships that sign on their crews at a non-British port. With regard to all British ships who sign on their crews at British ports, there are scales laid down by the National Maritime Board. The Board of Trade do not control the National Maritime Board. They do not participate in its discussions, and, if there are any attempt by individual owners to avoid agreements of the National Maritime Board or to pay officers and men less than the rates or to employ them on conditions less good than those agreed, such cases ought to be brought before the National Maritime Board. The board will undoubtedly be very glad to investigate them.
If the right honorable gentleman, the member for Wakefield, has evidence, as I understand he has, of instances in which the shipowners have not observed the requirements of the National Maritime Board, I should like to know whether those alleged breaches have ever been brought to the notice of the board itself. If they have been brought to the board and if they have been investigated and have been proved, and no action has been taken upon them, I shall take a very different view of the matter from the view which I would take had the matter not yet been brought to the notice of the National Maritime Board at all.
I think that clears, possibly as well as any statement I have seen, the relative position of those bodies.
The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that the Government had gradually retired from the National Maritime Board.
Mr. SAUGSTAD, The Government gradually retired after its more or less enforced position in acting as arbitrator on labor disputes during the war. The National Maritime Board developed, and it was found that apparently the Government's position would be better by retiring from active participation in the dicussions, and remaining as a court of last resort in any disagreement.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the shipowners' division and the labor division, or the seamen's division are unable to get together?