Mr. BENDIX. That is what we want to do, resurrect modern shipbuilding. Mr. RABAUT. To do that, must not the Navy step in and do its part in the program? Mr. BENDIX. The Government must step in and do its part, but the Navy must do its part by building up a fighting fleet and the shipbuilder must do his part. I am in favor of the highest wages for workmen, and the highest wages for the white-collar men; but I am not in favor of this racketeering in stocks in shipbuilding, such as we are having at the present time. Mr. RABAUT. We are trying to do away with it. Mr. BENDIX. The New York Shipbuilding Co. is owned by a man who is cruising around in the Mediterranean at the present time. He never saw a ship yard in his life. Mr. SIROVICH. Does not the history of the world show that the nation that controlled the merchant marine controlled the destinies of the world? Can you find any nation, outside of Spain when its Armada was destroyed, that controlled the destinies of the world except one that had a great merchant marine? Up to 1850, 1860, as the previous witness testified, our Country was a formidable Nation, not only because it could build the wooden ship, and only when the sailing vessels were relegated to the background and steam vessels came into the foreground did the United States fall behind in its merchant marine. The American merchant marine challenged the British ships, the best of them, and with them we won the triumphs of the sea. We would have kept away ahead if we had not brought our shipping down from 75 percent of the seagoing commerce of America, down to 16 percent, when the World War broke out; and if we followed the policy that you are speaking of today we would not have any merchant marine and we would be the victims of any nation that would attack us. I am a great believer in peace and am against war, but I will do everything I can to protect this country against any nation that may attack it; and I think we must look forward to eventualities and we must have an adequate American merchant marine in order to be prepared. Mr. BENDIX. I think that 15 ships a year, as a permanent turnover, is not inadequate. Mr. SIROVICH. I do too; but I do not agree with your ideas. The fact that a few men that are at the head of various ship companies are indiscreet and have done things they should not, does not make it right to damn the American merchant marine. Because the banking fraternity have not lived up to their duty and obligation to the public is no reason for destroying everybody interested in the development of the Nation. Mr. BENDIX. I am in favor of doing the things that will build up a real American merchant marine; but I say that these birds that have to make princely salaries and bonuses and expense accounts have no business in shipping, where we must meet the competition of the whole world. Buildings full of officials, most of whom know nothing about shipping or any of its branches, cannot be supported by any international operation where our competitors do not stand for such foolishness. The small, well-managed concern is more efficient by far and is much fairer to all concerned. 135956-35-7 Our subsidies should take care of the difference in the cost of building the individual ship, the difference in the cost of wages and food for the officers and crew who man our ships. That is all and this should be handled so that no shipping company will get their mitts on it. If we pay the differential in the cost of construction and operation and give them 2% percent to 3 percent better on their financing than they can get in any other country they can do business on that basis and we will build up a real American merchant marine. Mr. RABAUT. How about the differentials in maintenance and repairs? Mr. BENDIX. The differentials on maintenance and repairs, so far as the American trade goes, amounts to very little and the foreign ships have to meet the same costs. Mr. RABAUT. If the ship costs 40 percent more to construct in this country, by the same ratio it would cost 40 percent more to repair and maintain. Mr. BENDIX. Absolutely, foreign ships today have to meet the same maintenance costs. Mr. RABAUT. Any major reairs are done on the other side. Mr. BENDIX. Many foreign ships do not go to their own ports more than once every 2 or 3 years and they do their repairing here, The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything more? We have other witnesses here. Mr. BENDIX. That is all I would suggest at the present time. If we were to give an operating deficiency based upon our competi tion with the trade routes of the world, in which foreign countries have already established their routes, it must run economically and it must be based upon scientific standards and, instead of giving a subsidy to the whole line, to cover a fixed route, we should give a subsidy based on the operation of the individual ship. The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will adjourn until 2 o'clock. AFTERNOON SESSION The committee reconvened, upon the expiration of the recess, at 2 p. m., Hon. Schuyler Otis Bland (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM KELLY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, REPRESENTING THE MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Kelly; give your name and address for the record. Mr. KELLY. William Kelly, 210 Blackstone Building, Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to submit some notes and comments here on the bills that we have under consideration pertaining to the main question of the upbuilding of the merchant marine. The CHAIRMAN. We have only the President's message now. Of course, we have some bills on safety of life at sea and hearings are not being had on them, but if you think your remarks are related to these hearings and want to present your views we will hear you. Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. This is a brief digest of a series of bills under consideration intended to establish and maintain an efficient merchant marine, to reorganize the steamboat inspection service, and safeguard life and property at sea. A deep interest in the proceedings is manifested by the shipowners, the Steamboat Inspection Service, and the officers and crews of the ships. As a member of the last group, I herewith submit my views on the subject. H. R. 6038, by Mr. Bland, provides for changing the title of the Steamboat Inspection Service to the "Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation." Comment: The title should be changed to allow motor ships to be inspected with the steamships. H. R. 6035, by Mr. Bland, provides for a technical staff in the Inspection Service to design and supervise the construction of vessels propelled by machinery. Comment: A technical staff would be an innovation that may bring practical benefits. H. R. 6042, by Mr. Bland, provides for 10 traveling inspectors to gradually supersede the present Board of Supervising Inspectors. Comment: Traveling inspectors will not assure any more safety than the present Board of Stationary Inspectors. H. R. 6036, by Mr. Bland, provides for a safe load line for American vessels. Comment: Great Britain, the leading maritime nation, imposes a safe load line on her ships, and American lives should be as valuable as foreign lives. H. R. 6043, by Mr. Bland, provides for more safeguards for vessels engaged in the transportation of inflammable or dangerous cargoes. Comment: Practical safeguards should be approved in all cases. H. R. 6037, by Mr. Bland, provides for the inspection of all vessels other than steam, by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. Comment: Motor vessels are not more safe than steam vessels at sea, and should be inspected by the Bureau. H. R. 6203, by Mr. Sweeney, provides that all motor vessels over 15 gross tons, be compelled to conform to the laws of the Steamboat Inspection Service. Comment: All motor vessels should be inspected by the Steamboat Inspection Service. H. R. 6189, by Mr. Sweeney, provides that all steam vessels shall employ a licensed engineer while the boiler is generating steam. Comment: Economical shipowners are in the habit of laying off the engineers, when the vessel is laying at the dock for a short period, and leaving the live boilers under the care of unlicensed men. practice is fraught with danger. The H. R. 6039, by Mr. Bland, to provide all seamen on American vessels with a continuous discharge book, from a shipping commissioner. Comment: Some shipowners register their seamen at present for ulterior purposes, and it would be a progressive move to persuade the Government to register the seamen on American vessels. H. R. 6040, 6041, and 6044, by Mr. Bland, provides a change in the language of the act of March 4, 1915, the Seamen's Act. Comment: These bills provide amendments to the Seamen's Act, or the La Follette Act to grant a certificate of competency to able seamen, to install an 8-hour day for seamen, and to provide healthy and comfortable quarters for seamen in American steam and motor ships. They should be enacted into law. S. 1933, by Mr. La Follette, provides for the installation of shipping commissioners in ocean and Great Lakes ports where they are required. Comment: Government shipping commissioners are func tioning now in the ocean ports, and should be installed on the Great Lakes for the protection of lake seamen. H. R. 6202, by Mr. Sweeney, provides for the 8-hour day for licensed officers on all American-inspected vessels. Comment: This is most important bill before the committee. Safety of life and property at sea depends more on the ability and qualifications of the licensed officers than on any other factor in the navigation and operation of ships. To secure the best men for the service it must be made inviting. The 12-hour day is out of date. Forty years ago licensed officers on towboats worked 24 hours per day, catching a nap during a lull in the operation. After a series of strikes the 12-hour day was gained. Last year the towboat men on the Great Lakes went on strike for the 8-hour day. They arbitrated and a Government arbitrator made this strange decision. These towboats are on call, and are not operated continuously. The 12-hour day stands. Thirty years ago lake steamers of 4,500 gross tons and 2,300 horsepower engines were operated by 2 engineers and 2 oilers working 12 hours per day. Through a strike, they secured a third engineer, but the shipowners forbid them to install the 8-hour day. Last year, the licensed officers tried to secure the 8-hour day by legislation. This committee referred us to the shipping code. The code failed us. We are here again to request the 8-hour day through H. R. 6202. Do we get it? Even the shipowners granted the 8-hour day on lake vessels above 4,000 gross tons last year. The CHAIRMAN. That would really form a part of the hearings on those bills, Mr. Kelly. I do not see where it comes right in on this hearing we are having now. Mr. KELLY. Well, the notice for us to come here said it was hearings on the merchant marine. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but these hearings on the seamen's legislation, some of them, are still pending Some of those bills we have concluded the hearngs on, and there are others that we have not taken up. If you will leave your name with the clerk you will notified when we get to the hearings on those other bills. I would put your statement in now in those hearings, but those hearngs have been already sent to the printer, those that have been concluded. But one of the bills you referred to we have no had hearings on. Mr. Brown testified on the other bills that we had here, so I think that the points were covered by Mr. Brown, on the bills on which we have had hearings, and the others we will be glad to hear you on. Mr. KELLY. I just want to make a further note here. I noticed during the hearing today that we discussed generally the subsidy bill, and I would just like to state our position on it. It says the subsidy bill should be enacted into law to enable American ships to compete with foreign ships and to provide a permanent merchant marine. However, the subsidy is a special privilege, and the firm so favored should not enter into collective bargaining with their marine employees. No ocean ship firm should participate in the subsidy. The Shipping Board fleet officially ended collective bargaining with all its employees. Mr. CULKIN. What do you mean? You say there should be collective bargaining? Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir; on all ships that are granted a subsidy. Mr. KELLY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. You believe in the enforcement of that as applied to the shipping industry? Mr. KELLY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. I did not catch whom you represent. I was not here, of course, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his statement. Mr. KELLY. The Marine Engineers Association. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Culkin, he read a statement that really had reference to the other bills, some of which we have had hearings on and some of which we have not had hearings on. His remarks are really a pertinent part of these hearings so far as they are concerned about the subsidy. Mr. CULKIN. You believe that the question of manpower should be definitely considered in connection with the awarding of the subsidy? Mr. KELLY. I think it is the most important factor. Mr. CULKIN. And should be contingent upon the awarding of the subsidy that is, proper wages and proper conditions? Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir; the 8-hour day. Mr. CULKIN. And you believe that is one of the things that would make for a permanent merchant marine in America? Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir, Mr. CULKIN. Did you hear the statement here that during the war the English took their men to man the merchant marine off the actual merchant marine; that is, those converted boats of the merchant marine that were used in the war by the English were manned by the men of the merchant marine? Mr. KELLY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. You understood that? Mr. KELLY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. and here in America we had to take men from the Navy to man the merchant marine? Mr. KELLY. Why, the reverse is the truth, sir. Mr. CULKIN. Is it? Mr. KELLY. Yes. I was in the Naval Auxiliary Reserve, and I helped to place all the men aboard those ships that crossed the oceanin the engineer department we appointed the engineers-and all our men were mostly merchant marine engineers. Mr. CULKIN. They are, of course, more or less technical men, are they not? Mr. KELLY. Sure. Mr. CULKIN. Trained men with certificates? Mr. KELLY. Licensed. Mr. CULKIN. And of course that would still hold really to the whole personnel down to the common sailor? Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. Mr. CULKIN. You think they have a right to a place in the sun in connection with the granting of these subsidies? Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. Mr. CULKIN. Within reason, of course? Mr. KELLY. Yes. Mr. CULKIN. You are for some provision for old-age security such as Germany, England, and France have? |