The main purpose of the Seamen's Act was safety. On that question the Legal Aid Society, of which Charles E. Hughes was then president, in its report had the following to say:

"THE BEARING AND APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW UPON THE SEAMEN'S BILL

"Provisions of the seamen's bill which may appear objectionable:

"Section 3 of the Senate bill and section 4 of the House bill provide for the payment of one-half of the wages which shall be due at any port where such vessel shall load or deliver cargo during the voyage. At the end of each of these respective sections occurs a proviso which makes them applicable to 'seamen on foreign vessels while in harbors of the United States, and the courts of the United States shall be open to such seamen for its enforcement.'

"Section 10 of the Senate bill and section 11 of the House bill forbid advance wages and allotments. Paragraph (e) at the end of each of these sections provides: 'That this section shall apply as well to foreign vessels while in the waters of the United States, as to vessels of the United States, and any master, owner, consignee, or agent of any foreign vessel who has violated its provisions shall be liable to the same penalty that the master, owner, or agent of a vessel of the United States would be for similar violation.'

"Section 12 of the Senate bill and section 13 of the House bill privide that a certain percent of the crew must be able to understand the language of the officers; that a certain percent must be able seamen; that certain life-saving equipment and appliances must be carried. The language is: 'That no vessel shall be permitted to depart from any port of the United States unless it conforms to the standards laid down in those sections.'

"Since these are the only sections which apply to foreign vessels, here only could objections be taken by foreign powers. It will be observed that the first two groups of sections named have to do with the welfare of seamen. The public policy is to give to this class of labor greater economic freedom, so that Americans will return to the sea. The last group of sections, while having to do with the welfare of seamen, are primarily for the purpose of protecting the public by making travel by water less dangerous to life.

"To make these poiicies effective it becomes necessary to extend the rules laid down to foreign as well as American vessels. Thus public safety would be but little protected if these requirements were applied only to American vessels, for the great bulk of the passenger carrying is done in foreign vessels. The provisions as to wage advances and payments if not applied to foreign vessels as well, would only serve to further discriminate against American seamen, make their employment more difficult, and drive them from the water. Thus the exact opposite of the intended result would be attained. In this law is invoked the principle that the remedy must be coextensive with the evil or the purpose of the law will be defeated. This is the same principle made use of in our quarantine laws and regulations. If quarantine laws were applicable only to American vessels their efficiency would be materially lessened.

66

From the above it follows that this bill is no wider in its application than is necessary to make it effective and thus carry out the public policy of Congress. Our national sovereignty must be limited indeed if this cannot be done. The bill does not attempt to control foreign citizens or foreign ships outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. If it be objected that this legislation contravenes the law of nations, that objection must be predicated upon the proposition that a sovereign does not have complete jurisdiction within its own territory whenever the welfare and safety of its nationals are at stake. The validity of this proposition will next be considered."

The second very important purpose was to equalize the wage cost and I quot the following "Law is equalizing wages.'

To show that the act, insofar as it is permitted to operate, is effectuating the purpose of Congress in equalizing the wage cost in foreign and domestic vessels, we quote from the forty-first annual report of the Legal Aid Society, whose principal officers are Charles E. Hughes, president; Carl L. Schurz, vice president; Allen Wardwell, treasurer; Cornelius P. Kitchell, secretary, and Leorand McGee, attorney in chief. Ón pages 19 and 20 of that report is the following:

"Never before has the seamen's branch been called upon to assist in having construed so many new questions of law, owing to the changes, in our old statutes, due to the new seamen's bill. The effect of the seamen's bill as enforced, particularly as to the provisions relating to advance notes or advance wages,

and the right of seamen to collect half their wages in American ports, as applicable to American and foreign vessels, is by far the greatest and most important of anything that has transpired in the shipping world for a long time. The Legal Aid Society took action in favor of abolishing the advance note or of making a law abolishing the payment of wages in advance of the time earned; this action was taken when the bill was pending before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in Congress. Our activities were in line with the provision of the seamen's bill, abolishing involuntary servitude and removing the remedies given to foreign governments and foreign shipowners, to arrest seamen who desert in ports of the United States. Seamen, being given a right on American and foreign vessels alike, to demand one-walf wages or half the wages earned by them and unpaid, in American ports, have been able to enforce that right by the provision of the law which enables them to bring suit for the full amount of wages owing them in case the master refuses to pay them half. I am inclined to believe the theory and actual operation of the seamen's bill is bound in time to prove its soundness and efficiency.

"I am informed that seamen coming here on foreign vessels which are sent to American ports to compete in American trade leave their vessels unless the master voluntarily guarantees them an increase in wages, which will bring their average earnings up to a par with the average earnings of American seamen, and other seamen in American ports, which have already arrived at the American standard. As a rule, seamen on foreign ships demand one-half their wages and then quit. The result is, the foreign ships' master must refurnish his vessel with a crew before leaving. To do this, he must apply to shipping masters or one of the seamen's institutions who supply seamen, but he has to pay the going rate of wages in the port of New York or Norfolk, or whatever port he happens to be in.

"The seamen then take the precaution to see that there is incorporated in their contracts of hiring, a provision that they shall be paid off in ports of the United States only. This assures them that they will always be discharged in a port paying wages as high as the ones in the United States, or that they shall be returned by such foreign owners to ports of the United States, where they will again have an opportunity of securing the best rate of wage. One need not be a mathematician or a student of economy to conclude that the enforcement of this legislation means the creation of an opportunity to the American shipowner to compete with foreigners on a par, so far as labor cost is concerned, and secondly, gives American an opportunity to build up a merchant marine by reason of the fact that higher wages are paid on board all vessels and rules for safety appliances, better food, larger crews' quarters, and general conditions on board, are enforced on American vessels. An interest in shipping is stimulated which has certainly never before existed. Government records show that some 1,162 American vessels have been built and launched in the United States during the past year."

Mr. FURUSETH. Mr. Bass, director of marine and dock labor during the war, in his report entitled "Work, Wages, and Industrial Relations During the Period of the War", reports that in 1918 the equalization had progressed so favorably that it was practically general in New York and that it was progressing rapidly in all other ports. The man who was sent to New York, Philadelphia, and Boston for the purpose of investigating the progress on the equalization had no belief in it himself. He was sent by the Department of Commerce and the Shipping Board, who had no belief in it. He came back with the report, the original of which President Wilson took with him to Paris, a copy of which, with a large part of the special comments deleted, was given to me when I left for Paris. It was expected by President Wilson evidently that the question of the Seamen's Act would be raised at the Peace Conference. I certainly expected it to be raised, and so did Justice Brandeis, who told me that my place just then was in Paris for the purpose of protecting the Seamen's Act. After the Peace Conference had closed, a file containing protests and urging that the Seamen's Act be either suspended or amended was by the

President turned over to Secretary William B. Wilson for the purpose of writing an answer. He wrote an answer which took less than one page of ordinary writing paper, and I was later on told that the President signed it and sent it, and they said that all foreigners had to do was to simply-to save themselves trouble was to treat the seamen just the same, or as well, as the United States. Now, that is all of the answer they got. In the meantime, our own Department and our own courts wiped away the law and gave it all away. We ask you gentlemen to restore it.

Immediately following the election I was informed by a gentleman working for one of the big companies in New York that the Seamen's Act was to be destroyed, and in 1921 bills were introduced to give the President authority to suspend it, and other bills were introduced to repeal it, and several bills were introduced to amend it. Notwithstanding the more than 100 majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives, when the bill to amend came before them it was voted down by more than 100 majority. In January 1921 the shipowners of New York and the Shipping Board wrote to the seamen insisting upon a reduction in wages. Within a few days a letter signed by Pryor and Ericson, of the Eastern and Gulf Sailors' Association; Carlson and Lynch, of the Marine Firemen, Oilers and Watertenders' Union, and Griffin and Grange, of the Marine Cooks and Stewards' Association, was sent asking that a meeting be called for the purpose of discussing and coming to an understanding of what was necessary to be done. This letter is found on page 3 of a speech by Senator Robert M. La Follette, entitled "Labor Policy of the Shipping Board", made in the Senate on July 25, 1921, together with a letter to the President found on page 4, in which letter, signed by Andrew Furuseth and William S. Brown, an offer is made to sail for 1 year for any wages and under any conditions that the President might determine in order to assist in maintaining the American merchant marine. On August 1, 1921, Senator La Follette made another speech entitled "British Influence in Shipping Board." Both of these speeches I respectfully submit and hope you will put them in the record, because they are certainly of great interest. They will be very interesting reading and will explain why we at this time have no more native Americans at sea, exclusive of licensed officers, than we had in 1919, and also indicates why the Morro Castle, the Havana, and the Mohawk met with disaster.

In 1920, while the Senate was holding hearings on the shipping bill of 1920, it was strongly urged that the United States should establish training stations and training ships for the purpose of training men for the sea. The shipowners made that strong plea in the hearings of

1920.

Here is British Experience on, or British Influence in Shipping Board, and here is Labor Policies of the Shipping Board. These are the two speeches of Senator La Follette, which I hope will be included in the record.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Furuseth, these speeches were made in 1921. Mr. FURUSETH. I am hoping that they might be put in the record. because that will preserve them in that way.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Furuseth, I think as to whether we shall incorporate these speeches in the record is a matter that we will take up in executive session.

Mr. FURUSETH. All right, sir.

Mr. PETTENGILL. It is a little unusual, because they are already available to the Members of Congress anyway, but we will take it up in executive session.

Mr. FURUSETH. All right. Thank you.

When asked what was the matter with the present personnel, the answer was "they are too much tainted with unionism." The services of the seamen during the war so highly praised by Mr. Bass and others was already then assumed to be forgotten. The Senate committee, however, declined any such proposal. That the then personnel was "tainted with unionism" was true though incomplete. It was tainted with unionism and nationalism.

And, by the way, I would like to insert just there that we seamen and other working people took our cue of organizing unions and voluntary associations of freemen from the Colonials, that organized the different organizations throughout the Colonies that afterward met and determined to issue the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the swaddling clothes of the United States we took and put on ourselves.

The struggle between the seamen organized, based upon fundamental American principles, and the reds had been in progress for several years. The reds wanted under all hazards to get control of the seamen. They then wanted, and do now want, the seamen for messenger service. They cannot send their propaganda from one nation to another by mail or express and the ready-made messengers' service, as they see it, are the seamen. To get the seamen to prevent that service along with such other service as the seamen in their desperation furnished to the reds in the Russian and German revolutions are of very great importance to the reds in their propaganda. Legitimate seamen with strong national sentiment knew it, and from a national as well as from a seamen's point of view it was of the greatest importance that the seamen should undertake to clean house and to prevent the reds from becoming or remaining members in the union, and for that reason the Sailors' Union of the Pacific adopted appropriate measures to that end, which in the Chicago Convention of the International Seamen's Union of America was put into the following language:

Provided, That no one shall be admitted to membership, or if admitted to be permitted to remain members, if they are members of or advocating principles and policies of any dual organization hostile to the International Seamen's Union of America, its aims and purposes.

Having tried to take the teeth out of the Seamen's Act by legislation, its teeth were extracted by failure of enforcement. In the shipping of seamen and their employment on board of vessels the provision of the Seamen's Act was disregarded. In the shipping offices established anybody (and in this case it meant the reds) was given preference in employment, and the reds or anybody else hostile to the Seamen's Union were deliberately used to drive legitimate seamen from the sea. The most far-reaching of the means used was a black-listing system, which the Sea Service Bureau acknowledged to be in operation under the name of the "deferred list." It was largely this proceeding that caused Senator La Follette to make his speeches, at the close of which the Senate authorized and instructed the Committee on Commerce to make a careful investigation into the facts