desire to present their viewpoints, we have decided to give this opportunity. As a member of the committee I do not see much advantage in thrashing over the matters that were covered in the former hearing, because it is here and available to all members and all interested parties, but, of course, we do not want to interfere with you gentlemen representing the shipping companies in presenting your case in your own way, because it is for you to decide what you want to present. The bill (H. R. 1399) is practically, if not identically, the same as the bill which passed the House during the last session. That was H. R. 7767. Subsequent to the hearings in the last session the question as to the amount of tolls was taken up, as all interested parties are aware, and it was determined by the Governor that if this bill should become a law, his recommendation would be that the tolls be fixed at not more than 90 cents a ton, instead of $1 a ton as permitted in the bill. That is the maximum amount permitted by this bill. I think that everybody interested understood at the time the last bill was presented to the House, that the tolls would actually be 90 cents, instead of $1. The theory of that charge was that the object to be accomplished was not to increase the tolls of the Canal in the aggregate, but rather to provide what was believed to be a more equitable system of apportioning those tolls. Now, how many of you gentlemen want to be heard, and is there anyone that is particularly anxious to be heard in order that he may get away promptly? We can hear you in your own order, if you have any preference. STATEMENT OF IRA L. EWERS, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION Mr. LEA. We might take the names of all the witnesses who want to appear. You may proceed, Mr. Ewers. Mr. EWERS. My name is Ira L. Ewers, and I am representing the American Steamship Owners' Association. Mr. LEA. You may proceed in your own way. Mr. EWERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going into the merits of this controversy other than to mention them in connection with our present difficulties. This subject has received considerable attention by both the Canal officials and the industry over a long period of years, and I believe most of you are familiar with the views involved and the difficulties of an equitable solution. With that in view, the association appointed a committee, some five or six members, to collect the factual data, to prepare recommendations to the association for a solution of the problem. That committee has requested various data from the offices of the Panama Canal which they believe will enable a more intelligent comprehension of the problem. The shortness of time has not enabled the Canal officials to prepare and submit that information nor, of course, our committee to consider it. We have been informed by the Canal officials that it is hoped that the information that we have requested might be air-mailed from the Isthmus by January 24, which would be today or tomorrow, and if they are able to prepare it within that time, it should be here relatively shortly, and the association and its committee and the various members of the association would like an opportunity of submitting for the consideration of this subcommittee their reaction to the general situation based upon a study of this factual data. It will be recalled that the present objection to this legislation has been not only that it would increase tolls in general but that it would redistribute them Mr. LEA. May I ask when that committee was appointed? Mr. EWERS. Some time last October, or November, I believe, and they had several meetings with Governor Schley when he was here, which would be last fall some time. Several propositions were advanced to Governor Schley at that time to which he promised to give consideration but as yet we have received no intimation as to what his attitude would be. As I was observing, the difficulty is that even though the gross amount of tolls collected from the Canal operations should remain the same, the affect of this legislation would be to redistribute the toll burden amongst the different classes of vessels transiting the Canal. Some classes of vessels as such would benefit. Other classes would have to bear the burden to the extent that others are benefited and the association's committee has been approaching the study of this situation with an idea of determining whether that redistribution of tolls between them would conform to the basic theory of the toll system that vessels should pay tolls pursuant to their earning capacity. We have found several instances which tend to indicate that the proposed legislation would not only produce further inequities in that connection, but we have asked for statistics that would indicate the extent of those inequities. In the hearings before the committee previously, I believe it has been generally recognized that although perhaps this legislation would correct one loophole in the law, or one inequitable situation, that still further inequities would remain and that some inequities would result from the legislation itself. At a hearing granted by the Secretary of War, shortly after this hearing last year, the Secretary of War and the Canal officials apparently recognized that the legislation as recommended would produce hardships on the industry as such. The Secretary of War addressed a letter to Congressman Lea that it was his purpose to recommend, perhaps, that for laden vessels, the tolls should not exceed 90 cents a ton, which would minimize the inequities resulting from this legislation but not entirely dispose of them. We find, however, in the annual report of the Governor of the Panama Canal still further reference to the reasonableness of the efficacy of the $1 rate, and would like to be informed whether there is any disagreement on that score or whether the 90-cent rate will be recommended. In the annual report of Secretary of Commerce Roper, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1934, this general situation is commented upon, with respect to the Canal tolls as such. The Secretary also makes reference to international inequities in the admeasurement systems, and recommends still further consideration of a recent proposal for an international basis of admeasurement which would pos sibly serve as the basis for an international agreement on toll charges, lighterage dues, harbor charges, and so forth, which possibly would be capable of conversion into a satisfactory basis, for Suez tolls and Panama Canal tolls; but our committee's progress has been such that we are inclined to believe that a piecemeal disposition of this troublesome problem like starting in with the ordinary approach of an especially pure theory of assessment would not be proper at this time. I am not able to say when we will receive the information we have requested, or when we will be able to make some report to this subcommittee as to our reactions to this legislation. I do not know whether Governor Schley has communicated to the committee his reactions to several proposals that were made to him during the conferences in New York, but it seems to me and I am sure others are similarly disposed-that it is manifestly unfair for the officials of the Government to take the position that this legislation should be enacted and leave to further consideration admitted inequities, and speaking purely for myself now, and not as a representative of the association, it occurs to me that the only proper method of disposing of this subject in an intelligent and complete manner would be to refer for investigation the general situation to a committee that could take cognizance not only of the changes which the Lea bill proposes, but of the other inequities which are admitted to exist, the other hardships which would result from this legislation, so that the general situation will be as relatively free from inequities as it is possible for such a study to make it. Now, concerning the present legislation, it will be observed that the relationship of ballast rates to laden rates, has been eliminated from the legislation so that the ballast rates now need only be less than the laden rates without any fixed percentage of difference, and we have further indicated that the rates upon ballast vessels would be increased beyond the present relationship. And, I am sure that we would all like to know whether that removal of the limitation on the ballast rates was actuated by a desire to increase ballast rates or to decrease them. It is capable of approach in either manner. Once the limitation is removed, of course, the relation of the ballast rates to the laden rates might be increased or reduced. In that connection, I think it might be helpful in our further consideration to have that point clarified. I am not prepared on behalf of the association to say that the ballast rates should be increased or decreased, but I do think that the further consideration of that will be helpful. Mr. WOLVERTON. Why are you not in a position to say definitely what your opinion is with regard to that? Mr. EWERS. Because the association, as such, has taken no action upon it, Mr. Wolverton. Mr. WOLVERTON. Why not? Mr. EWERS. We have merely studied the matter to determine what the relationship of ballast tolls should be to laden vessels. Mr. WOLVERTON. Is it because there is any difference of opinion or conflict of interest in your association that makes it inadvisable for them to take a position one way or the other? Mr. EWERS. No, sir; I would not say that. There may be such conflicting interests, and generally is some conflict in a large organization. Rather it has been in the factual data which we have requested from the Canal officials. Among the other questions we have asked were the number of laden and ballast transits which have been made of the Canal by the different types of vessels; that is, the general cargo carriers, combination passenger and cargo vessels, and the tank steamer traffic, and all of the factual data upon which that study will be predicated is available. The Association as such would not be able to pass upon it, and I do not believe that the committee would until it knew the extent of laden and ballast rates. Mr. WOLVERTON. Well, is the factual data that you desire any different from the data that appears in the report of the Panama Canal Commission? Mr. EWERS. Yes, it is. The Canal Commission divides traffic between general cargo steamers, which comprehends every type of carrier except tanker tonnage, whereas for the purpose of our study, we desire a still further break-down of tonnage other than carrier tonnage. Mr. WOLVERTON. Is the information which you are seeking and which you have stated will probably be here within another day or two any different in character from information that you have previously had with respect to that matter? Mr. EWERS. The information which we have had heretofore, Mr. Wolverton, has been largely of representative inequities; that is to say, we know that certain types of vessels would benefit or be injured according to the application of this system. We have not had factual data indicating the extent of that benefit or its distribution among the several types of carriers, and for that reason, we have asked that that be broken down in that manner. Mr. WOLVERTON. From whom do you expect to receive that information? Mr. EwERS. From the officials on the Isthmus and the telephonic inquiries of Mr. Flint, since this hearing was announced indicates that the Canal officials had information that they expected to forward so that it would be here on or about the 24th, but that was an estimate which they might not be able to live within. Mr. WOLVERTON. Will you give the committee the benefit of the inquiry that you made for information, so that we may determine how important the information is that you are seeking? Mr. EWERS. I should be very happy to submit for the record a copy of the letter of inquiry and of the questions propounded of the officials, that the committee may know. Mr. WOLVERTON. We would like to have it. Mr. LEA. That may be incorporated in the record. (The document referred to is as follows:) Mr. A. L. FLINT, AMERICAN STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION Chief of Office, The Panama Canal, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. FLINT: In connection with our studies of Panama Canal activities we should like to have the information requested on the enclosed memorandum, covering the fiscal year ended June 30, 1934. I do not know whether this is all available in your office, but if it is not available will you have the information forwarded from the Canal? Very truly yours, R. J. BAKER, President. PANAMA CANAL PARTICULARS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1934 The following data is requested as referred to by item numbers under headings following: (1) Number of transits laden. (2) Number of transits in ballast. (3) Tolls paid laden. (4) Tolls paid in ballast. (5) Panama Canal net tonnage (exclusive of deck loads). (6) United States equivalent tonnage. (7) Deck loads as measured under Panama Canal rules. (8) Measurement, under Panama Canal rules, of cargo spaces exempted under United States rules. (9) Measurement, under Panama Canal rules, of cargo spaces exempted under United States rules, coming under general classification of poop, bridge, or forecastle decks or combined spaces. (10) Measurement, under Panama Canal rules, of cargo spaces exempted under United States rules, coming under general classification of shelter decks. (11) Measurement, under Panama Canal rules, of passenger spaces exempted under United States rules. (12) Approximate measurement under Panama Canal rules of public spaces devoted to feeding, recreation, and entertainment of passengers. (13) Tons of cargo carried. (14) For non-cargo-carrying vessels: Tonnage upon which payment of tolls is based, i. e., Panama Canal net or displacement. (15) For toll-free ships: Tolls that would have accrued if vessels were not exempted by law. (16) For toll-free ships: Tonnage on which tolls would have been assessed. A. For Passenger Vessels of United States registry: items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. B. For passenger vessels of all other nationalities: items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. NOTE.-By passenger vessels is meant vessels in which a substantial portion of the capacity is devoted to the carriage of passengers; this is not intended to cover freighters with passenger accommodations limited to 16 passengers or by International Safety of Life at Sea Agreement. NOTE." Cargo ships", items C to H, includes all cargo-carrying vessels with not over 16 passengers. C. General cargo ships (not "shelterdeckers") of United States registry; Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13. D. General cargo ships (not "shelterdeckers") of all other nationalities: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13. E. General cargo ships of the United States registry with closed shelter deck spaces: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13. F. General cargo ships of all other nationalities with closed shelter deck spaces: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13. G. General cargo ships of United States registry with open shelter deck spaces: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13. H. General cargo ships of all other nationalities with open shelter deck spaces: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13. I. Tankers of United States registry: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13. J. Tankers of all other nationalities: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13. K. Non-cargo-carrying ships of all nationalities: Items 1 (not laden), 3 (not laden), 14. L. Toll free ships: Items 1-15, 16. M. Separate tabulation for passenger and cargo ships in United States intercoastal trade (exclusive of tankers): Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13. |