The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many ships in the coastwise trade are now prepared for travel through the canal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No, I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many ships Great Britain has in the over-seas trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I can tell you in one minute.

The CHAIRMAN. These are of over 100 tons-4,128.

Senator WALSH. The figures you gave the chairman were over a thousand, were they not?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; they were. I will read the complete figures. The number of United Kingdom sailing vessels in the foreign trade is 4,128.

Senator SIMMONS. You excluded sailing vessels in your answer to the question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am speaking of steam vessels now.

Senator SIMMONS. You said, "sailing vessels."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I beg your pardon. It is steam vessels, 4,128, with a total tonnage of 10,041,514.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the minimum tonnage of any vessel em braced in that number of 4,128?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Fifteen.

The CHAIRMAN. Fifteen tons ?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Fifteen tons, as I recall it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I asked what number of ships Great Britain had in the foreign trade. Surely she has not a 15-ton ship in the foreign trade.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Across the channel. No; that would not count. They are stated separately over here.

The CHAIRMAN. How many ships has Great Britain in the foreign trade with a minimum capacity of 1,000 net tons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not know. I do not recall any figures on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you the record there showing the number of sailing vessels engaged in the British foreign trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Two hundred and forty-two.

The CHAIRMAN. That makes a total of 4,370 vessels engaged in that trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your information that Great Britain controls more than one-half of the ocean trade of the world?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Just about one-half.

The CHAIRMAN. The other half is divided among all the other nations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. These are United Kingdom ships that I am speaking of. Of course in addition to that there are British ships that are registered in the British colonies, in Canada, Australia, and in New Zealand. I do not think there are any in South Africa. The CHAIRMAN. Have you the record as to those?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not separately stated, and in just that form. I have Lloyd's figures here.

Senator PERKINS. Do the colonies exempt them from taxation? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not know as to that, Senator. I really do not know as to that. The total number of British steamers, counting

the colonies and all, of 100 tons and over is 10,009 of net tonnage 12,025,510. That is the Lloyds return for 1913.

Senator SIMMONS. That includes the colonies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; the colonies separately stated are 1,495 of 915,950 tons net.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Chamberlain, I understood you to say a little while ago in answer to the chairman that we had 363 vessels in use in the coastwise trade, steamboats of a net registry of more than a thousand tons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Exactly.

Senator SIMMONS. When you came to give the British steamers engaged in the coastwise trade

The CHAIRMAN. No; we are speaking of British vessels engaged in the over-seas trade.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is the entire

Senator SIMMONS. Wait a moment. I understood you to say to the chairman, in answer to his inquiries with reference to the number of American vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, that you did not think that a vessel of less than 1,000 tons could be very well employed in trade through the canal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Continuously?

Senator SIMMONS. Continuously through the canal. That same proposition would hold true as to British ships, would it not? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Undoubtedly.

Senator SIMMONS. You also said that you did not think sailing vessels need be considered in connection with trade through the canal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. That is also true of British sailing vessels?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. Will you state right here why sailing vessels should not be considered with reference to the use of the canal?

Senator SIMMONS. Will you not let me finish this and then go back to that?

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Senator SIMMONS. Will you please state what number of British steamers are engaged in the over-seas trade of a registered net tonnage exceeding 1,000 tons? You gave 100 tons a little while ago. I wanted 1,000 tons.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I can not do that. I do not know where there is such a list. It could be made up, but it would take some time to do it.

Senator SIMMONS. Unless you could give that list of English vessels or steamships of over 1,000 tons, as you have American steamships engaged in the coastwise trade, the comparison would not hold, because there would be a great many more than 363 American vessels engaged in the coastwise trade in excess of a tonnage of 100 tons, would there not?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not understand that there is any comparison. Two different lines of inquiry were offered.

Senator SIMMONS. But it was for the purpose of comparison that those facts were being developed.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a faculty of probably determining what is in my mind, Senator. It might not necessarily be that at all. As a matter of fact, it was not for the purpose of comparison.

Senator SIMMONS. I think I have a right to draw an inference. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Commissioner, will you state you have excluded sailing vessels from the number of American coastwise craft available for use through the Panama Canal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. All of the sailing directions, so far as I know, relating to the waters of the Pacific Ocean to the west of the canal terminals, indicate that for long stretches of ocean there is no wind there.

Senator THOMAS. Is that not equally true on the Atlantic side? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No; I think not.

Senator THOMAS. Is it not true to some extent?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Of course it is true to an extent everywhere, but there are long intervals in the stretch of the Pacific terminus of the canal where the wind is very unreliable indeed, and of course sailing vessels can not hire tugs to put them out for 500 or 1,000 miles. It is not an economical proposition.

Senator THOMAS. I have been informed that those conditions are the same on both sides.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not think the sailing directions indicate that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your judgment that sailing craft can not make use of the canal commercially?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Absolutely. It is practically true to a very great extent of the Suez Canal. They only use it to a trifling extent. Senator WALSH. For the same reason?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. If you can not give the number of British vessels engaged in the overseas trade exceeding 1,000 tons capacity, can you give us the number of American vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of a capacity exceeding 100 tons, the standard that you used in giving the number of British vessels?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I can by a little addition. I can give you the details, but I can not add them up as I go along, I am sorry to say. Steam vessels-that will not do either, because that is the total foreign and coastwise. But the American steam vessels, foreign and coastwise, that are 100 tons to 499 tons, 2,053. Those from 500 tons to 999 tons number 560.

Senator BRISTOW. Is that of any value to us?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not know, Senator.

Senator BRISTOW. These tugs along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers will never go through the canal. They can not get there. Senator SIMMONS. The question asked about British vessels included all that were overseas vessels.

Senator BRISTOW. He is including the coastwise vessels as well as the overseas vessels in the statistics he is giving us now, which would take in all of these ferry boats, and I suppose these boats running from here to Alexandria.

Senator SIMMONS. I imagine some of these 100-ton vessels he gave us in his list of British vessels were also ferry boats and small boats, because I do not suppose they send clear across the ocean a vessel of a capacity of only 100 tons.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I may get the information the Senator wants by another inquiry. Do you know how many British ships passed through the Suez Canal in 1911?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I did not bring the Suez returns here. I have them for 1912.

The CHAIRMAN. Subject to correction I will state the number to be 3,000 British vessels passing through the Suez Canal in 1911. Do you know how many American ships passed through the Suez Canal in the same period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No; I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Subject to correction, I will state the fact that two American vessels passed through that canal in 1911 and 3,000 British vessels.

Senator SIMMONS. I understand, Mr. Chamberlain, as a matter of fact, that we have, according to your former statement, only about 16 vessels engaged in the over-seas trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Steamships engaged in the overseas trade.

Senator SIMMONS. Our shipping is coastwise shipping and combination foreign coastwise shipping, and stopping at ports in the West Indies and along the American coast?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Roughly speaking, 90 per cent of it is coastwise.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chamberlain, can you state what proportion of these coastwise vessels is controlled by railroads, or in which railroads own an interest?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That was the subject of a very thorough investigation by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, which devoted a year or more to the subject, and Dr. Huebner is to be here to answer that specifically, and the same, too, as to the railroad-owned interests in these ships. Of course, the fact must not be overlooked, I take it, that of these 363 vessels, some of them doubtlessI do not know which ones, because that is a matter for separate investigation-come within the railroad prohibition of the canal act, and some of them possibly come under the prohibition in regard to those ships that are owned or operated by corporations, and in respect to those provisions or in some other way they are violating the Sherman antitrust law. This statement of vessels just presented is to be taken quite apart from any considerations of that kind, because, in the first place, it is not my place to look into it, and in the second place, two of the most competent authorities, the House committee and the Interstate Commerce Commission, have already examined them exhaustively.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been stated, I suppose in the knowledge of members of the committee, and found, I think, by the House committee, that approximately 92 per cent of the coastwise traffic of the United States is controlled either by railroad monopoly or other combinations, which under the terms of the Panama Canal act will exclude those vessels from the use of the canal. In other words, that only 8 per cent of the coastwise ships of the United States will be available for use through the canal. If that same proportion holds good as to the 363 ships, having a net tonnage of 1,000 tons or more, it will follow that 45 of those ships are the only ships out of the 24,765 coastwise vessels that will be permitted to use the canal.

Senator THOMAS. That is, assuming that the railroads do not, as usual, whip the devil around the stump, and get their boats, or some of them, at least, through the canal.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask you another question, Mr. Chamberlain. Do you know whether at any time in the history of our navigation laws taxes or tolls were imposed by the Government on our coastwise shipping making use of canals or the improved waterways maintained at the expense of the National Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not as a general principle. During the Civil War there was a tonnage tax imposed on vessels in the coasting trade. I can not recall, on the spur of the moment, the amount.

The CHAIRMAN. That was a war measure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That was done during the Civil War, but after the war it was taken off.

Senator CRAWFORD. Mr. Chamberlain, in using the words "coastwise trade" and "coastwise vessels" in the figures gathered, what vessels are included in it? Does it include vessels that are engaged in commerce on the Lakes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes.

Senator CRAWFORD. Only inland traffic?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not in this table [indicating]. "Coastwise" I have used in the sense that I think it is generally used, of domestic trade.

Senator CRAWFORD. Then a boat carrying tonnage from Cleveland to Buffalo would be engaged in coastwise trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Oh, undoubtedly.

Senator BRISTOWw. Mr. Chamberlain went into that quite elaborately, Senator, before you came in.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the difference in the cost of maintenance and operation of vessels engaged in the American coastwise trade and vessels engaged in the British trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you no knowledge at all?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. None that can be stated with any precision. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your impression that there is no difference in the cost of maintenance? We want your information, whatever it may be, on that subject.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Generally speaking, the wages on American ships are higher than they are on British ships, just as wages generally speaking, in a new country are apt to be higher than they are in an old country. The same rule applies to shipping as it does to everything else, I take it.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The cost of American ships is more?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. A great deal more.

Senator BRISTOw. Is not the information in regard to that matter available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not in any way that is at all trustworthy. I know I have not been able to get it, in a way that is at all trustworthy, for this reason, that it is very hard to get precise bases of conparison. It is useless to try to compare the cost of building one ship in the United States and a ship in England and Germany, for example, unless you can state the proposition under precisely similar conditions, namely, you must ask for practically an identical ship