to be built here and abroad at the same period, because, of course, the cost of building a ship varies very greatly in the same place, depending on the amount of work that a concern will have to do, whether the times are busy or whether they are slack, and all other conditions; so, you see, it is almost impossible. We have so few ships that are built for foreign trade that it is impossible or I have found it so-impossible to get any basis of comparison that impresses me as being at all fair. The nearest I have come to it is this: Cases of this kind have arisen where an American desiring to build a ship has asked for the price here and at the same time has asked foreign builders to bid on it, too. Senator BRISTOw. Have you any illustration of that kind? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. There have been cases of that kind. I have not any, in my own knowledge, of date of recent years. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know generally, Mr. Chamberlain, that it is believed that a ship can be constructed in England or Scotland, in the Clyde yards, or in Belfast in Ireland, for 50 per cent of the cost of the same ship in an American shipyard? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Very much less. I would not say 50 per cent, because I do not know. I would not want to make so precise a statement as that. I could not back it up. The CHAIRMAN. You are in the course of your official duties required to give much of your attention, of course, to our navigation? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is my business. The CHAIRMAN. And the execution and observance of the laws? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, all of our over-seas commerce, with the exception of 15 or 16 ships you have spoken of, is carried in foreign bottoms? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any figures indicating about what it costs the trade and commerce of the United States annually in having this commerce carried in foreign bottoms? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No, I have not, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know it has been estimated that the United States spends $50,000,000 a year for transportation of our commerce in foreign ships to foreign ports? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I have not seen that. The CHAIRMAN. You have heard that stated before? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I have not seen that particular statement, but of course the cost of ocean transportation of the imports and exports of the United States must be rather more than $50,000,000, I should think, without any doubt. The CHAIRMAN. More than $50,000,000? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Without any doubt. Just take their valuelook at the value of exports and imports. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Brandegee suggests he thinks it is nearly double that amount, which would make it $100,000,000 a year. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I should think it would be that. But how much of that we pay; that is, the cost of the transportation of the exports and imports The CHAIRMAN. Whatever we pay the foreign shipowner in the transportation of our exports is added to the original cost, and so with the imports? Whatever comes here we have added to the original cost of the product its cost of transportation? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Undoubtedly. The CHAIRMAN. In a word, the commerce of the United States, then, is contributing upward of $100,000,000 to the owners of foreign ships. Is that approximately correct? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is approximately correct as I understand the word; yes. I do not understand you to say that the United States is contributing that, but the commerce of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. It is a burden on the commerce of the United States? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Well, I would not use the word "burden." I will say why. The CHAIRMAN. Give us your view. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I will. It is probably a reasonable compensation for conducting the commerce of the United States, because I do not think ocean freight rates, as a rule, are exorbitant. Senator THOMAS. I suppose if they were carried in American bottoms they would have to pay the same thing? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It has got to be paid. You can not ask ships to carry cargoes for nothing. In that sense I would not speak of it as a burden. The CHAIRMAN. If carried in American bottoms that $100,000,000 would then go into American enterprises. It would go into American shipping enterprises, would it not? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It would be part of the wealth of the country. Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chamberlain, I have heard that amount stated. I think Admiral Evans stated it as $500,000,000, the equivalent of the cost of the canal per annum. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I think the admiral stated it too high. It can not be anything like that. Senator THOMAS. That is for the total commerce of the United States, of the American ships, in foreign commerce, both imports and exports. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No; including even passenger fares and mails it could not come to that. The CHAIRMAN. You were required some years ago in the discharge of your official duties to make a study of the economic aspects of the Panama Canal, and as to the wisdom of imposing or remitting tolls on American coastwise crafts. Is not that so? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is stating it too broadly. That duty was not imposed on me specifically. It was merely as a casual incident. The CHAIRMAN. You made a report at that time, did you not? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I made a report, of course. The CHAIRMAN. You made a report in 1911? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Did you not state in substance that the imposition of tolls on our coastwise trade would ruin the trade? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not think I said exactly that. I said if the ships had to pay the tolls The CHAIRMAN. How can tolls be imposed unless they are paid by ships, and subsequently by the shipper, and thereafter by the consumer? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. They can be paid precisely as they are paid in some cases at the Suez Canal. They are paid in some instances by a contribution or subsidy, whatever you choose to call it, from the Treasury. The CHAIRMAN. Of the foreign countries? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Paid as the transit over other improved waterways is paid, by the appropriations you make in the rivers and harbors bill. They are two absolutely distinct propositions, Senator. One proposition that all ships, or certain classes of ships, or certain nationalities of ships shall not pay any tolls at all. Another proposition that in respect of every ship and when I say "every ship'' I mean warships, revenue cutters, merchant vessels, and everything else, yachts, that a toll in respect of that ship shall be paid. When you come to who pays it, of course there are various ways of doing that. I think that anything I may have written would certainly have that in view, because that is an opinion that I have held for some time. But that is perhaps apart from what you are inquiring about. Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Commissioner, how many of these foreign vessels that are engaged in the traffic are owned by citizens of the United States? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. As distinguished from corporations? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. An American vessel has to be owned by an American citizen. Senator BRISTOW. I mean a foreign vessel. I do not mean an American vessel. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I do not know. Nobody can tell that unless he has looked at the stock books of the foreign companies. There was a time, when the International Mercantile Marine Co. was organized, that Americans owned a very large interest in the various fleets that went to make up that combination. Whether they still hold that interest or not I could not say. There is a gentleman who appears frequently before these committees, Mr. Robert Dollar, of San Francisco. He owns vessels under our flag and under foreign flags, too, and frequently makes comparisons between that; and then the Standard Oil Co. has ships under various flags. That is my understanding of it. And William R. Grace & Co. have ships under the British flag and under the American flag. Those are well-known instances where there is no particular doubt about the fact, as I understand it; but beyond that there must be a large number of cases or a considerable number where it is a mere matter of personal information. or conjecture. Senator BRISTOW. Have you any data definite or specific on that that you can provide the committee with? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I have not. Senator BRISTOW. Is there any available anywhere? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. None that I know of, and I do not know how it could be had. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Commissioner, I desire to read from your report, under date of May 18, 1911, to the President of the United States, and I ask whether the view therein expressed is your opinion now. It is at page 8, at the top of the page, and reads: A deliberate conclusion to tax directly American shipping to pay for the maintenance of that canal [referring to the Panama Canal] when no tolls are imposed on vessels, American or foreign, for the use of our other improved waterways, will be well-nigh inexplicable save as the definite surrender of the ocean to others, by the United States, except as we may use these waterways from time to time for the maneuvers of our war vessels. I judge that is very close to the present situation, if we have only 8 per cent out of the number of vessels that are mentioned that are available for the canal. I do not see what we have for the canal, assuming that the statement is correct. It seems to me that the surrender is there. If we have 363 vessels available for the canal under normal conditions, and 80 or 90 per cent I have forgotten what you said—are cut out, of course there is very little left. Can you state how many vessels are flying the German flag in the over-sea trade? Senator SIMMONS. You say there is very little left after you cut out the railroad controlled and the trust-controlled ships. The canal is not cutting those out, it is the fact they are owned by the railroads? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Oh, yes. Senator SIMMONS. And by the trusts-I mean controls are not cutting those out; it is the absence of controls? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. No. Senator THOMAS. Before you leave that subject I should like to ask you whether or not the imposition of tolls on vessels engaged in foreign commerce would not have the same effect largely, especially when you consider that they are now pursuing old routes from which they can not be diverted very well unless unusual inducements are offered? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That, of course, depends on their rate of tolls, the rate imposed. I should not think $1.25 would. Senator THOMAS. The other would depend on the rate of tolls? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes, sir. Senator THOMAS. So the question is practically the same as to all shippings? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It is the same in kind. There are differences in degree. The CHAIRMAN. Can you get that information in regard to the German trade? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. The total steamers of the German Empire in 1913-this is according to their tabulation--was 2,749. The CHAIRMAN. In the over-seas trade? you Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That would include their domestic trade; but will recall that the German seacoast is very small, so the number in their domestic trade can not amount to very much. You see, on the Atlantic it can not exceed 120 miles. I think the German seacoast on the North Sea and on the Baltic is somewhat longer, perhaps 400 or 500 miles; but it is not comparable to ours in any way. The CHAIRMAN. What is the total number of ships engaged in foreign trade flying the French flag? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I could not say, Senator. I have got the total French tonnage, according to Lloyds. The French have a considerable coasting trade, because France has coasts, as you know, both on the Atlant'c and on the Mediterranean. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Huebner, could you, in a word, give that information? Dr. HUEBNER. No, sir; I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Have you the number of vessels flying the Norwegian flag engaged in the foreign trade? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. The tonnage of all nations, according to Lloyds' Register, which is a recognized authority, and also repeating the Bureau Veritas tests, is stated in my report of 1913 at pages 194 and 195, the distinction between those engaged in foreign and domestic trade; those engaged in the respective countries is not given; lump figures are given and I could not give them in detail. So far as Norway is concerned I do not know any statistics on the subject, because I have tried to find them and I could not. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any information there as to the number of ships in the foreign trade sailing the Dutch flag, or under the Dutch flag-Holland? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Four hundred and fifty-one steamers. I will give you the Lloyds figures, 622 steamers, 794,840 net tons. The Netherlands, of course, has a canal trade, just small vessels, but they do not have any coast to speak of. The CHAIRMAN. The Dutch control a large part of the foreign trade of the world, do they not? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Not a large part, not nearly as large as it used to be. No; they are not so important on the sea as they were. For example, here is Germany, the total tonnage under the German flag is 5,000,000 tons. I am giving round numbers. Norwegian, 2,450,000 tons. Then the Dutch flag is only 1,300,000 tons. You see, the Italian with 1,500,000 is ahead. The French have 2,100,000 tons and Austria-Hungary 1,000,000 tons. Senator BRANDEGEE. Have you that arranged in tabulated form in your report? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It is right here. Senator BRANDEGEE. I ask that that be put in the record. The CAIRMAN. If there is no objection, it will go in the record. |