carry a crew of at least equal number, and any such vessel which fails to comply with this requirement shall be refused clearance: Provided, however, That such vessel shall not be required when departing to carry in the crew any person to fill the place made vacant by the death or hospitalization of any member of the incoming crew. SEC. 7. No vessel shall, unless such vessel is in distress, bring into a port of the United States as a member of her crew any alien who if he were applying for admission to the United States as an immigrant would be subject to exclusion under subdivision (c) of section 13 of the immigration act of 1924, except that any ship of the merchant marine of any sovereign nation may freely bring any excluded citizen or subject of such nation or any person not racially excluded who is a bona fide seaman as a member of the vessel's crew, exclusive, however, of any citizen, subject, or inhabitant of any colony, dependency, or mandate who is racially excluded from coming to the United States as an immigrant. Any alien seaman brought into a port of the United States in violation of this provision shall be excluded from admission or temporary landing and shall be deported, either to the place of shipment or to the country of his nativity, as a passenger, on a vessel other than that on which brought. at the expense of the vessel by which brought, and the vessel by which brought shall not be granted clearance until such expenses are paid or their payment satisfactorily guaranteed. SEC. 8. This act shall take effect sixty days after it is passed. Senator BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen: I should like to have you hear first, Assistant Secretary Carr of the State Department. His time is rather limited this morning because he has been called before another important committee. However, he has some very remarkable material to present to the committee, and I hope you will hear him immediately. Senator HARRIS. Yes; the committee will hear Mr. Carr. STATEMENT OF WILBUR J. CARR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE. Senator KING. I take it you are familiar with the letter of Secretary Hughes, filed with us when he was Secretary of State. Mr. CARR. Yes; I have a vague recollection of it; I have not read it recently. Senator BINGHAM. That was a long time ago, before people found out very much about this bill, Senator King. Senator KING. I do not agree with you; it is the same bill; and the people had the same knowledge then they have now. Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen: The Secretary of State asked me to say to you that he wanted very much to come before the committee this morning because he is strongly opposed to this measure in its present form, but he had an important Cabinet meeting on and was unable to come; so, he asked me to come and to try to present some of the views which he holds in regard to this measure. I think this bill is generally understood to be a measure for the deportation of alien seamen improperly in the United States. At least, that is the popular conception of the measure. The State Department, of course, stands for the principle that seamen unlawfully here, or improperly here, should leave the country and a way should be found to send them out of the country; but we think this bill goes much farther than that and proposes to do certain things which would affect our international relations in a very unfavorable manner. For instance, as we understand it, the bill proposes to interfere with the composition of crews of foreign ships, which would be in conflict with the well-established customs and international practice in relation to shipping, which is to leave a vessel in a foreign port in charge of its own crew so long as they do not interfere with the conditions in the country into which the vessels have temporarily come. The bill undertakes to regulate the kind of alien seamen to be employed on foreign vessels. The administration of the bill, as we understand it, would also be a very expensive thing. As the information comes to us, the administration of this bill, due to increased cost of administration plus the loss of fines, and so forth, would amount to something like $600,000 a year. This information I am giving you comes, of course, from other branches of the Government. The most important thing in which the State Department is interested is the effect which the bill would have upon foreign governments. It proposes to exclude from ports of this country seamen who are racially ineligible for admission to this country. That is the principle involved, as I understand it. Yet, while Japanese ships may come and bring their Japanese crews to this country, a British ship, a Dutch ship, a Norwegian ship which comes to this country, although it may bring in nationals of the mother country, may not bring as members of its crews racially excluded people even though they are nationals of its colonial possessions. British shipping, for example, is put at a disadvantage with the Japanese shipping. American shipping is put at a disadvantage with Japanese shipping; and we do not think that that is a fair thing to do. This matter has already brought upon us the strong protests of 10 nations, including Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Italy, and others. They all allege that this bill is in conflict with the established principles among nations, the established shipping practice; and I would like to present to you briefly as I can the views which those nations hold. For instance, the Belgian Government, in a communication which you have before this committee, stated: Without entering into the details of this bill (S. 7), the apparent aim of which is to enforce the present regulations in immigration matters, the Embassy of the King takes the liberty of observing that it seems to go contrary to certain customs generally accepted in international law and that its application would create the most serious difficulties for Belgian ships frequenting United States ports. On April 1, 1930, the Canadian Government, in objecting to Senate bill No. 1941, wrote: The possibility of the enactment of these bills is causing concern to foreign countries, both because they diverge in certain important respects from accepted international practice and because their provisions would create serious difficulties for foreign shipping. The general ground on which objection may be based is that the proposals would result in drastic interference with the composition of crews of foreign vessels in United States ports; they would thus infringe on the accepted principle which provides against interference with the domestic economy of a foreign vessel * The Danish Government, on January 9, 1932, in protesting against Senate bill No. 7, states: The bill * * would seem, if passed, to entail serious hardships— among others to Danish ships trading to ports of the United States. and that In so far as this prescription (sec. 7) will apply to aliens racially excluded this provision would seriously affect Danish ships using Oriental crews, such as in particular ships trading to American ports at the Pacific ocean. In requesting consideration of the objections made by the Danish Government it is asked that the proper committee of Congress be informed of the concern felt by the Danish shipping circles with regard to this proposed legislation. The French Government protested on February 7, 1927, against the terms of Senate bill No. 3574, stating that if a restrictive interpretation is placed on the bill, it will not fail to prove "considerably cumbersome" to the French colonial merchant marine. On October 6, 1931, the French Government stated: Such a measure would involve most serious disadvantages. It would entail great expense for French companies It is quite evident that the presence on board of foreign seamen receiving higher wages than those of the French seamen, although engaged in the same tasks could not fail to result in most unpleasant consequences from a disciplinary point of view. On February 12, 1927, the German Government protested against Senate bill No. 3574, stating: The enactment of the bill woud prove an extraordinary burden to German shipping interests * ** Again, on January 21, 1928, a protest was registered against Senate Again, on January 21, 1928, a protest was registered against Senate bill No. 717; and they said: In the opinion of the German Government (Senate bill 717) if enacted will entail serious hardships to German shipping interests. Again, on April 15, 1930, the German Government's protest was renewed with regard to Senate bills Nos. 202 and 1941, it being stated: Such legislation would, in the opinion of the German Government, entail serious difficulties to the German American shipping trade. On March 3, 1931, a further protest was registered to Senate bill No. 202, and it is stated: The possibility of the enactment of these bills is causing the Government great concern since that would not only deviate from international practice, but would also seriously affect the rights of the German shipping companies. * * * because the contracts concluded between the German shipping companies and their crews are governed entirely by German law. * * * The Germany embassy, therefore, renews its serious apprehension with regard to the enactment of the two bills. On December 24, 1931, the German Government formally protested against Senate bill No. 7 and, in repeating its previous. objections, states: * * The grave objections in this regard should have all the more weight because the economic situation has meantime become much worse, so that all measures to this effect deserve especially earnest consideration. * * The British Government made a protest in 1927, another in 1928, another in 1929, 1930, and February, 1931. On February 21, 1931, in renewing its previous objections, the British Government said: The bill provides for interference with the composition of the crews of foreign vessels while in United States ports. It is the general international understanding that when private ships of a foreign state are in port the territorial authorities should refrain from interference with the interior economy of the vessel. The composition of the crew is a matter which affects the interior economy of a vessel, and the proposed clauses, if enacted, would, therefore, conflict with a well-established, well-recognized, and useful international practice. Further, the bill would in effect discriminate against foreign vessels trading in American ports. * * Even stronger objection may be taken to the proposed legislation on the ground that it constitutes a direct interference with trade, its effect being to dictate to other countries how they are to carry goods to and from the American market * * * * Active apprehensions have been caused in the legislative assembly in India by the legislation proposed, and if enacted, would constitute an unwarrantable interference with the employment of British Indians on foreign vessels not properly subject in such matters to American jurisdiction. It is pointed out at the same time that the bill would constitute a virtual discrimination in favor of Japanese and other Asiatic vessels at the expense of the merchant marine of Great Britain and all other maritime countries * * * Quite apart, however, from particular considerations of a practical nature such as those already mentioned, strong objections must be taken to the proposed legislation on the wide ground that it constitutes a direct interference with trade likely to lessen its volume in both directions. Its effect, if not its object, is to dictate to other countries in what manner they should send goods to and carry products and other supplies from the American market. On January 5, 1932, the British Government again protested, its objection in this instance being made to Senate bill No. 7. I should like to read this protest in its entirety because it is a very strong presentation of their view. They say: The avowed purpose of this bill is to reinforce the existing measures which exclude certain categories of aliens from the United States. In practice its effect would go much further. It is the general international understanding and practice and in accordance with international comity, that when private ships of a foreign state are in port the territorial authorities refrain from interference with their internal economy. The bill in question, however, provides for interference with the composition of the crews of foreign vessels while in United States ports and is therefore in conflict with a well-established, wellrecognized and useful international practice. Moreover it lays down that certain categories of aliens shall not be employed as seamen on foreign ships calling at United States ports. The British embassy under instructions from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have not failed to draw attention to this aspect of the bill in past years. From the practical point of view also certain features of the bill would create many and grave difficulties for shipowners and masters. Section 6, for instance, provides that clearance shall be refused to vessels departing from United States ports unless they carry out a crew of at least the same number that they brought in. This provision, as again the British Embassy has pointed out in the past, would be extremely difficult to comply with and might easily result in long and costly delays and make punctual fulfillment of sailing schedules impossible' * * But it is section 7 of this bill which causes the gravest concern to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. This section of the bill lays down that no vessel shall bring into a United States port any alien seaman excluded on racial grounds from the right of immigration to the United States, unless he be a citizen of the country under whose flag the ship sails. Thus in practice all vessels with Asiatic elements in their crews, save only the vessels of Asiatic countries with crews consisting of their own citizens and, it seems, United States ships with Filipinos, would be debarred from entry to United States ports unless at the cost of deliberately incurring the penalties which the bill provides for its violation. All other ships in which Chinese and Lascar seamen were employed would be gravely embarrassed by such a provision; but the measure would bear particularly hard on British tramp steamers trading with American ports in the course of their world voyages. For these especially the technical difficulty of eliminating from their crews the Asiatic elements in question would be so great as possibly to result in the necessity of their omitting United States ports from their sailing schedules; for the bill would leave them with no alternative but to submit on arrival to the removal of the Asiatics in question to a United States immigration station for deportation in a ship other than that in which they were brought and at the cost of the vessel in which they came. In effect it would dictate to other countries in what manney they shall man ships which convey passengers and goods to and from the United States. If other countries should adopt silimar and perhaps even mutually conflicting measures international shipping would be brought to a complete standstill * * * There remains one aspect of the bill to which the British Embassy are instructed to draw particular attention. Operating as it does to debar British ships from employing as seamen even the natives of British colonies and dependencies, Indian lascars, for instance, and other British subjects who by reason of their race are debarred from the privilege of immigration to the United States, it conveys the impression of being specifically directed against the British Empire. As has been pointed out, it would involve a discrimination in favor of Japan in as much as by specific exception from the general provisions of its article 7 it permits the ships of any sovereign nation to be manned with subjects of that nation but not with racially excluded citizens of its colonies or dependencies ** ** * In the circumstances above described it will be appreciated that this bill, if passed, would deal a grievous blow to British shipping and could not fail to cause very considerable feeling in British shipping and commercial circles who would naturally ask that steps be taken to protect their interests. The Italian Government has submitted several protests, the last one being December 28, 1931, in which they said: The provision made by the "full crew" clause therefore would cause considerable hardship to Italian shipping business for the reason that in the case there would occur eventual desertions at the last moment, it would not always be possible to substitute the missing seamen without causing serious loss of time * * * which fact would upset the regularity of the schedules and he (the captain) might moreover be forced to embark individuals who are ignorant of duties required of seamen and engage them with perhaps contracts more onerous than normal ones. It is also pointed out in that protest that no one is permitted to embark as a seaman on an Italian flag vessel unless he has been duly entered in the register of the maritime service and unless he has been furnished with a regular seaman-service book which contains full data relative to the bearer's identity, including his photograph and the duties with which he is entrusted in the Merchant Marine. In the past, Italy submitted at least one protest in which she claimed that this bill was in conflict with the treaty on commerce between Italy and the United States. Senator HARRIS. What was the date of that protest. Mr. CARR. That was in January, 1928, and related to the bill S. 717, which contained substantially the same provisions as this bill. We do not claim that that is necessarily so. What we do claim is that section 7 of the bill is contrary to the spirit-not the letterbut the spirit of all of our treaties allowing reciprocal freedom of trade and navigation in the ports of the countries which are parties to the treaty. |