« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. Saugstad. By inference Dr. Burgin here indicates that then there is recourse to the board of trade itself.
Mr. CULKIN. That is their department of commerce.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir. I say " by inference " because Dr. Burgin in his last sentence says that he will take a very different view of the matter than he will take if it has not been brought to the notice of the National Maritime Board at all.
Mr. Culkin. He simply insisted they had original jurisdiction and if it had not been presented there they would not take any notice of it, but if it had, and no action or unsatisfactory action was taken, then the board of trade would take up the question. That is a fair inference from what he says.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. That is the inference from that statement, I believe.
The CHAIRMAX. In other words, they would be a Government agency that would finally pass on differences between these bodies that develop in the National Maritime Board ?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I presume so; yes. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say on the British position at this time.
Mr. SIROVICH. Will it be possible under the British system to have a condition of affairs that existed in New York City at the time of the Montauk and Morro Castle disasters, that men could go out and buy certificates of A. B. that would show that they are well qualified to do work assigned to them and they have never been on the sea!
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I have no knowledge of that.
The CHAIRMAN. That would logically come under the board of trade.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIROVICH. According to what you have stated over here, I think in the bills the chairman has introduced that have been discussed here in the last 2 or 3 weeks would take care of that the same a's this Maritime Commission. You would have a central agency here in Washington that would have the names and addresses of all the merchant marine, their qualifications, their discharge books. their photographs, fingerprints, and everything, so that we would be in a position to certify to the traveling American public that the men who are working on their merchant marine are well, ablebodied, capable men, who are experienced for the work that they are engaged in.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, I think that the conclusion would be this, that the marine inspection and navigation service as constituted, with the powers given to them, would then exercise more nearly the powers of the British Board of Trade. But that would not take the place of the Federal Maritime Authority, which would have jurisdiction of the differences between the seamen and the shipowners themselves.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. The British industry, of course, has had enormous experience with problems of this character.
Nr. Sirovich. About how many people are engaged as seamen in Great Britain?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. We read into the record this morning the totals in the various categories as of 1929. And I might say that the latest statement I have on that was also by Dr. Burgin at this same appearance before the House. Whether his figures include all seamen I do not know, because he specifies and refers to the insured portion. Dr. Burgin stated :
The total number of insured persons in the mercantile marine on October 22, 1934, was 150,660; the percentage of unemployed was 32. In shipbuilding on the same date the corresponding figures were 158,790 persons insured, of which 47.5 percent were unemployed.
Mr. SIROVICH. Forty-seven percent of this 158,000 were unemployed as of October 1934?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIROVICH. Do these figures embrace officers in addition to seamen, or just seamen?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I do not know that. He says the total insured.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Those that apparently are under the insurance provisions, that is, social legislation.
Mr. CULKIN. The general social legislation ?
Mr. Saugstad. They are signed on articles, the same as our system, for the voyage.
Mr. SIROVICH. Just for the voyage ?
Mr. SIROVICH. Could you get us some statistics that we could read later that would give us an idea of the average amount of work in a year for the average British seaman? If you do not have it now, could you get it for the record ?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I do not know that I can. I rather assume that the Labor Department can give you those. They follow these questions very closely. I can give you the total registered number of men under various categories as these appear in the statistical record of Great Britain.
Mr. SIROVICH. I am not interested in that. Mr. SAUGSTAD. But you want the total employed, do you not? Mr. SIROVICH. In other words, that would give me an idea to know whether a seaman works 6 months in a year or 8 months or 4 months
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I am informed that there is a census taken each year, and those census figures are available.
Mr. SIROVICH. I would like to have it in the record if you could produce it.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. We will find them. Mr. SIROVICH. It would be very informative. Mr. CULKIN. Under the operation of their dole, of course, those figures would be available very readily, would they not? Mr. SAUGSTAD. I assume so; yes. Mr. CULKIN. Assuming that they classify occupations. Mr. SaUGSTAD. Yes. Mr. WELCH. Was the National Maritime Board authorized by an act of Parliament?
in the year.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. As I stated previously, it came to a head more or less during the war, and since the war the Government withdrew from participation. I believe it is a private organization.
The CHAIRMAN. You have finished with Great Britain?
The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to ask this question, and you may have covered it or you may not have information on it. In the Marine Progress of November 1933 it was said that
On May 26, 1933, the German Government announced its intention of granting German shipping a subsidy of 20,000,000 reichsmarks as an indemnification for the losses resulting from the depreciation of certain foreign currencies. Only recently has the procedure to be observed in the distribution of this subsidy become known.
Then, further in the same article it is said: The subsidy is theoretically to be regarded as a loan to the companies, which they must repay within the present business year if their financial situation allows for such a repayment. In view of the present economic trend it is probable, however, that this repayment provision will have little practical value.
I do not know; you may have covered that.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Apparently it did, because I have here the statement, and I think I made the statement yesterday that the fund was exhausted by October 1933, the same date that you referred to.
Mr. Culkin. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. CULKIN. Can you segregate your figures and give us the amount of subsidy that Great Britain paid, say, in 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. You need not do it now, but you can do it later if you have it handy.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I have a table that ought to show that.
Mr. CULKIN. Of course, that period would involve the construction of the Queen Mary, would it not?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. No; that would not involve that.
Mr. Culkin. If you can give those figures I would be interested in them.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I have those tables, I think.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir. It would be limited strictly to contract services. In answer to the question about total expenditures that relate solely to the contract services, these were £799,000 in 1932, £746,400 in 1913, 4730,000 in 1934. Those amounts
Those amounts are the so-called “packet” services. They do not include the amounts discussed under the tramp ship and the tramp loan provisions we discussed this morning, which are now in process of operation.
Mr. CULKIN. Can you average those by the year?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. I usually orally state that the contract system of Great Britain is about £750,000 annually, and it has been about the same for about 30 years. There is very little change in that particular system.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is about how much in dollars?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. About three or four million dollars. That is a round-table discussion figure.
Mr. SIROVICH. And that is the ship subsidy that Great Britain gives in the form of mail contracts?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir.
Mr. SAUGSTAD. No, sir; and it does not include the subsidies that are now to be given to tramp shipping:
Mr. SIROVICH. And how much would that amount to, the tramp shipping?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. That is £2,000,000 for this year--for 1 year. .
Mr. SAUGSTAD. It is just a 1-year proposition. We discussed it this morning
Mr. SIROVICH. It began this year?
(During the hearings in March on the proposed British tramp ship law we discussed the conditions and the provisions of the bill. Since that time we have official word that part 1 of that bill, which became law on February 26, and which relates to the operation of tramp ships, that is, subsidies to tramp ships for operating, is effective for the calendar year 1935 only. Part 2, which relates to the 10,000,000 pound loan fund for the purpose of replacement of old cargo ships, was placed in force on March 18, 1935, by joint order of the board of trade and the Treasury for 2 years from the date the act was passed. The act was passed on February 26, 1935.
The CHAIRMAN. Do they have 10,000,000 pounds now for the construction of tramp ships?
Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir. And I may state that in all detail the testimony given at that time is correct. There is no modification in the bill as passed.)
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have finished with Great Britain. I have Italy and Japan to proceed with at your pleasure.
The CHAIRMAN. I will go on morning and evening, and if necessary at night in order to get through the hearings, but I have got to have some time off in consultation as to the bill. So I think we might just as well recess now, with the understanding that we will not have formal hearings until Tuesday.
(Accordingly, at 4:45 p. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m. the following morning, Saturday, Mar. 23, 1935.)
* Matter enclosed in parentheses is statement of Mr. Saugstad given during hearing on