Mr. FRANKLIN. It is called the separation. Mr. LODGE. Are the Italian ships destitute of that? Mr. FRANKLIN. The passenger might roll out, except that we have given them such good ships. If this ship were sent into the Italian trade to-day, all these spaces [indicating], where they are now built in rooms, would be ripped out. They would be fitted like that [indicating]; open steerages. If we were to put this ship into the Italian trade, they would not allow us to compel the Italian passengers to sit down to their meals. You have to serve the meals to them in groups of six as they go by a particular place. Mr. BENNET. The American law compels you to serve meals on tables, and the Italian law forbids you to do it. Mr. FRANKLIN. It forbids us to compel them to eat at tables. We furnish tables in a good many cases. The British Board of Trade regulations, which we now recommend to you, compel us to give each passenger 5 superficial feet on the upper deck for promenade purposes and air. That is something which your regulations do not compel us to give. We claim that there are a good many advantages from the passenger's point of view in the British Board of Trade regulation. It is a complete regulation. It is one that everyone clearly understands. It would put us all on a better basis. We do not feel that it would injuriously affect the immigration situation in the slightest. Mr. BURNETT. Has it already been adopted? Mr. FRANKLIN. It went into effect January 1, 1908. Mr. BURNETT. Ships have been constructed with a view to carrying it out? Mr. FRANKLIN. Steamships are being so constructed.. Mr. BURNETT. And the others have been changed? Mr. FRANKLIN. It will require very little modification because they have really been measuring on that basis without the law. As it is now, ships have to be built with a view to the United States regulations as well as the British regulations. The CHAIRMAN. Without altering the structure of the ships, you think this would operate to reduce the number of passengers that you can now carry? Mr. FRANKLIN. Section 42 would materially reduce it. I can, if you wish, read to you the admeasurer's figures from New York with respect to a few of the ships. The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you put the table in the record. Mr. FRANKLIN. I will do so. Comparison sheet and recapitulation of vessels admeasured under the provisions of the act passed February 7, 1907, to take effect January 1, 1909, and the act of August 2, 1882 (now in force), showing the percentage of difference in the number of steerage passengers allowed under the provisions of each act. Comparison sheet and recapitulation of vessels admeasured under the provisions of the act passed February 7, 1907, to take effect January 1, 1909, and the act of August 2, 1882 (now in force), showing the percentage of difference in the number of steerage passengers allowed under the provisions of each act-Continued. I will in this connection submit two other tables: Recapitulation of vessels admeasured under the act to take effect January 1, 1909, showing the percentage of difference in passengers allowed under each act. American steamship St. Paul.-Admeasured under provisions of law to take effect January 1, 1909. Mr. BENNET. Have you there the figures as to the Moratis. Mr. FRANKLIN. I do not see the Greek line. Mr. BENNET. There is only one ship, but it is a very curious ship. Mr. LODGE. If you were to use the spaces which under the present law are not allowed for in computing the superficial feet, would you wipe out the 25 per cent reduction which you have cited in the case of the Adriatic? Mr. FRANKLIN. I do not think so. Do you mean if we were to use the available spaces now on the ship? Mr. LODGE. Yes. Mr. FRANKLIN. In some ships you might be able to do so materially; you might practically wipe it out; and in others you would not. Mr. LODGE. Suppose it is allowed for by change of law in accordance with the British regulations, would that wipe out the reduction? Mr. FRANKLIN. No; but it would about cut the reduction in half. Mr. LODGE. There would still be a reduction? Mr. FRANKLIN. There would still be a reduction. It would about cut these figures in half, in our opinion. Mr. BURNETT. There is nothing in that law to prevent you from doing away with the dining rooms and the smoke rooms? Mr. FRANKLIN. The only thing is that in case the British regulations were adopted, we would be compensated for them. We really have to have them from a commercial point of view in order to attract passengers to our lines as against other lines. It is competition. Everybody is doing the same thing. We would have to provide some. We could not do away with all of them under any circumstances. Mr. LODGE. Under the British regulations if you were to use those spaces for immigrants of course you would lose the benefit of them in computing the space. You would lose in the end? Mr. FRANKLIN. Quite right. You would lose the difference between 15 and 12 superficial feet on your upper decks and the difference between 18 and 15 superficial feet on your lower decks. Mr. LODGE. If we adopted the British regulations you would gain nothing by using the spaces for immigrants? Mr. FRANKLIN. No. Mr. BENNET. Do or do not the British regulations allow any credit for increasing the height between decks? Mr. FRANKLIN. They give you this credit: They fine you if you have not 7 feet. If you have less than 7 feet, they fine you by increasing the space you have to allow on this deck [indicating] from 18 to 25 superficial feet. Mr. BENNET. That is the same principle that is found in our law? Mr. FRANKLIN. The same basis as yours. Mr. BENNET. Suppose instead of 7 feet you have 9 feet? Mr. FRANKLIN. You get no credit for it. Mr. BENNET. Not under the British regulations? Mr. FRANKLIN. You get no credit for it. You must not go below 6. Mr. LODGE. But you must not go below 7 feet? Mr. FRANKLIN. If you go below 7 feet you are fined. I should like to refer once more to the main feature. Let me show you this plan [exhibiting]. By section 42 we are prohibited from putting the third-class passengers into the most desirable part of the ship. We have some ships running that carry only third-class passengers, and we carry them up on this deck [indicating]. It is absolutely contrary to the law, but it is the best deck on the ship, barring none. It is the deck on which we carry first-class passengers, but by your law we can not use it for third class. Mr. BENNET. Why? Mr. FRANKLIN. Because you say on the main deck and two decks below the main deck. You say that these decks [indicating], which are good enough for first and second class passengers, are not good enough for third. On the finest decks on the ship you prohibit our carrying third-class passengers. Mr. BURNETT. As a matter of fact, you would not carry them there at present prices? Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes; we do. There are some ships that carry only third class. Mr. BENNET. That is why I asked you about it. Mr. BURNETT. Do they have these decks [indicating]? Mr. FRANKLIN. The whole ship right through. Mr. BURNETT. They are steerage passengers? Mr. FRANKLIN. Immigrants. They are the finest ships you ever saw for the carriage of third class. We carry passengers on this deck [indicating], and it is against the law. Mr. BURNETT. Against section 42? Mr. FRANKLIN. Against section 42. Mr. BENNET. Of existing law? Mr. FRANKLIN. Of your existing law and of section 42, both. But by the British Board of Trade regulations, which we ask you to adopt, we can carry passengers on all of these upper decks, if we wish to. It is not done except on ships carrying only thirdclass passengers. Mr. BENNET. That is why I asked you about the Moratis-because they give the upper deck to third-class passengers. Mr. FRANKLIN. They do it against the law. Instead of everybody trying to construe what the main deck is and compelling the steamship companies to cut their ships in order to bring down the main deck, if you will give us the privilege of carrying right straight through, we will carry on the same deck, but everybody will understand where we do carry, and then we will have the privilege of carrying where we like on those ships, and it will be a much clearer proposition. It will be a clean proposition. Everybody will understand it. As it is now, nobody understands what the main deck is. Mr. BENNET. I came in late and did not hear the first part of your remarks. much investigation did the British Board of Trade give to this subject? How Mr. FRANKLIN. They had a very important committee which sat for seven or eight months, and these regulations were adopted on their recommendation. Mr. BENNET. How much inspection did they give to your particular ships? Mr. FRANKLIN. I can not answer that. I know they went all over all the ships. They made a very complete study, but I can not reply in detail to your question. We have the proposed bill here. Mr. JENKS. You say that in the British regulations there is a provision that there shall be 5 superficial feet of deck room, and that there is no provision of that kind in our law? Mr. FRANKLIN. No, sir. Mr. JENKS. As a practical matter there is no likelihood of shutting that off. Competition would not permit it? Mr. FRANKLIN. Competition would make it impossible. You could not do it. Mr. JENKS. That is what I supposed. So far as that matter is concerned, the British law is a bit of unnecessary regulation. Mr. FRANKLIN. So far as concerns that particular thing. But if you had a tramp ship it would be unnecessary. That is what we want to bring out. If people who are not depending upon the trade want to fit up a ship for three or four voyages, they could do it without considering these things. We could not, because if we did we would not carry that fellow's brother or sister. Mr. BENNET. Under our section 42 the space you have allotted to passengers on the upper deck for exercise and so forth-possibly, I do not say so can be counted as a part of the 18 superficial feet allowed each passenger? Mr. FRANKLIN. Would you like me to read the bill, or what we suggest as an amendment, or will you have it read by the secretary? The CHAIRMAN. You may read it. Mr. NEILL. Before you do that, let me ask you a question. You submitted figures showing a reduction of from 25 to 40 per cent in the available carrying space. Was that a reduction below the actual carrying capacity or a reduction from what it would be on the basis of the British act? Mr. FRANKLIN. It is the reduction below your present law as compared with section 42. Your present basis is a cubical basis of 100 feet on the upper decks and 120 feet on the lower decks. The figures we have submitted are those of the admeasurer in New York. He has measured the ships for section 42 and finds this difference. Mr. NEILL. Those figures show how much section 42 would reduce the carrying capacity as compared with the present law? Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes, sir. Mr. NEILL. Could you have a computation made showing the reduction section 42 would make as compared with the British act? Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes; we could have that worked out. It is about 15 to 18 per cent, I should say. It cuts it about in half. That is about the calculation we have worked out. It varies. Mr. NEILL. It cuts these figures in half? Mr. FRANKLIN. About in half. Mr. NEILL. This is the plan of the Baltic? Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes, sir. Mr. NEILL. I understand you to say it would reduce the carrying capacity of the Baltic about 28 per cent? Mr. FRANKLIN. Right. Mr. NEILL. Then it is about 14 per cent above what the British act would reduce it? Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes. Mr. NEILL. On what percentage of the trips during the year does the Baltic carry over 86 per cent of its carrying capacity of steerage passengers? Mr. FRANKLIN. I should say it depends upon how she fits in the schedule. If she fits in just right she would get two trips full capacity, but only about two ships in each line would get it, because running four ships in a line two of them would not fit in for the month. Two might just catch two voyages. Mr. NEILL. Then on all the other voyages this reduction would practically be of no consequence? Mr. FRANKLIN. It is null and void really, except now that the eastbound is increasing, it would shut people out from going, as it stands to-day. The eastbound during 1907 was two-fifths of the westbound, and then the rush was only during the last six weeks. It did not have time to work itself out, and it is going on now tremendously. Mr. BENNET. Five hundred and sixty-two thousand third-class passengers left this country in 1907. Mr. FRANKLIN. And about 1,250,000, in round numbers, came in. Mr. NEILL. Aside from this question, do the companies keep records of returning steerage passengers? Mr. FRANKLIN. Oh, absolutely. I can show you them right here. The CHAIRMAN. The law requires that. Mr. NEILL. How long have you kept them? Mr. FRANKLIN. I should say for fifteen years; ten years, anyway. Here are the records [exhibiting] east and west bound from 1893 to 1906. The first two years are for eastbound only. Mr. NEILL. Are those by age and sex? Mr. FRANKLIN. No, sir. Mr. LATIMER. Would you mind running over those figures? I should like to see about what has been the average. Mr. FRANKLIN. Shall I call the eastbound right down and then the westbound right down, which will show the increase? Mr. LATIMER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Beginning when? Mr. FRANKLIN. With 1895. Mr. BENNET. Why not call the eastbound and westbound for the same year? This is a table showing the third-class passenger carryings by all lines to all ports the calendar years 1893 and 1894, eastbound only, and 1895 to 1906, inclusive, east and west bound. These figures include Canada and the United States. For 1893 the east-bound were 165,086; for 1894, 210,399. For 1895, westbound, 328,246; eastbound, 154,071; 1896, westbound, 314,426; eastbound, 127,760; 1897, westbound, 240,285; eastbound, 129,482; 1898, westbound, 274,308; eastbound, 124,516; 1899, westbound, 388,911; eastbound, 118,212; 1900, westbound, 507,755; eastbound, 156,320; 1901, westbound, 549,526; eastbound, 142,677; 1902, westbound, 763,730; eastbound, 178,562; 1903, westbound, 894,926; eastbound, 254,220; 1904, westbound, 767,880; eastbound, 374,263; 1905, westbound, 1,010,346; eastbound, 246,480; 1906, westbound, 1,231,146; eastbound, 341,368. Mr. BURNETT. How many returned in the last two months? Mr. FRANKLIN. I could not tell you. Mr. BURNETT. Approximately? Mr. FRANKLIN. Every ship from about the middle of November, or the first week in November, to the end of the year was full. Mr. BURNETT. Going east? Mr. FRANKLIN. Going east. Mr. LATIMER. Is it going on now? Mr. FRANKLIN. Now; particularly to the Continent and Italy. The Italian ships have not been absolutely full. The continental ships all have been. The movement so far this year, up to to-day, has been 7,000 coming into the country. The CHAIRMAN. Since the 1st of January? Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes. There have come into the country 7,138; there have gone out of the country 30,056-44 to 1. Mr. LODGE. Since when? Mr. FRANKLIN. Since January 1. All of the continental ships eastbound for the past eight weeks have been full; every one of them. The Italians dropped off about the first of the year, but the dropping off about the 1st of January was because the people could not get their money out of the banks. If you will allow me, I will read this suggested amendment for discussion. The CHAIRMAN. Will you please insert in the record the tables of statistics you have there? |