The proviso in this section was evidently added because of these suggestions contained in the department's letter of April 24, 1924 (pp. 3-4). However, it meets only a part of the objection, which relates to sailors deserting as well as to those dying or becoming ill immediately before the time for the sailing of a vessel. The proviso covers cases of death or hospitalizat.on, but does not cover cases of desertion. As pointed out in the letter mentioned, if vessels were required to fill the places of seamen deserting immediately or very shortly before the scheduled time for sailing, it seems likely that in many cases the sailings would be delayed, thereby causing great losses to the owners and shippers.

The extent to which enforcement of section 6 would injure foreign vessels would, of course, vary in different cases, but it seems quite likely that vessels of some lines find it necessary to have more seamen when coming to ports of the United States than are needed on voyages from ports of this country, whereas the converse may be true of vessels of other lines. Also, it seems quite 1.kely that the needs of seamen may vary in different seasons of the year. However, it is safe to assume that many vessels would by the enforcement of this proposed provision, be required either to leave this country overmanned or come to this country undermanned. The extent to which the foreign countries would be warranted in protesting against the application of section 6 would depend, of course, upon the extent to which it would place a burden upon their vessels. Several foreign missions have already called attention to the fact that application of this provision would place a very heavy burden upon their ships entering ports of the United States. The Italian Embassy contends that this provision would be in violation of the express provision of Article XI of the treaty of commerce and navigation of 1871 between the United States and Italy. Whether or not this would be the case, it is believed that the provision mentioned would seriously interfere with the "reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation," which it was the avowed intention of the treaty in question to promote. The British Embassy in its memorandum of January 4, says that the provisions of section 6" are likely to lead to much inconvenience and in many cases to long delay, involving the alteration of sailing schedules and serious loss to business."

Section 7. This section has been discussed above in connection with section 4. The British Embassy, in its memorandum of January 4, mentioned above, after observing that the bill provides for interference with the composition of the crews of foreign vessels while in the United States, adds the following statement concerning the objectionable character of the bill as a whole :

"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, wellrecognized, and useful international practice."

In addition to the communications from the Italian and British Embassies and the Netherland Legation, mentioned above, the department has received communications from the French and German Embassies and the Norwegian Legation.

For the reasons mentioned, it is believed that the adoption of Senate bill 717 would not be desirable.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

FRANK B. KELLOGG.

Senator COPELAND. In previous hearings, Senator King, were these matters brought out about the opposition of the State Department? Senator KING. We had the letter of Secretary of State Hughes and the letter of his successor, Secretary of State Kellogg.

Mr. Carr testified this morning and we will let his testimony stand. If it is a contradiction of the statement of Mr. Hughes the record will show it. I am not going to institute a comparison now.

Senator BINGHAM. It is my understanding that foreign nations have been rather slow in coming to a full realization of just what this means, and some of the protests which Mr. Carr put in this morning have come in quite recently. Is not that correct?

Mr. HODGDON. All except the French protest came in since this bill was introduced this session.

Senator KING. There have been protests before.

Mr. HODGDON. Yes; but they are getting stronger all the time. Senator KING. Ever since the bill was introduced there have been protests from several nations-I do not recall the number-against the bill.

Mr. HODGDON. That is correct.

Senator KING. And the protests now from some nations are of substantially the same character as heretofore made, only, as you say, they are a little stronger.

Senator COPELAND. If it is true that the practical effect of this bill would be to dump a number of aliens in here

Senator KING. We want to prevent any aliens coming in that are not bona fide seamen.

Senator COPELAND. And I am with you in that matter; but, at the same time, it is very apparent from these few things that I have heard that the practical effect would be to encourage the desertion here of aliens so we would have more on hand. It is a matter of great concern in New York. They are not very desirable citizens, those alien deserters.

Senator BINGHAM. Suppose under this bill a Chinese ship with a Chinese crew comes into the port of San Francisco and 50 of the crew desert and can not be found. The vessel must sail with an equal number. You can take anybody you can find in the port of San Francisco, American sailors, for instance, and then the ship can sail. Then what about those Chinese who have come in?

Senator KING. I think that statement has no relation whatever to this bill.

Senator BINGHAM. But it can happen under the bill.

Senator KING. This bill provides that there shall be an inspection before any of them can come ashore at quarantine; and if there shall be one Chinese who is a mala fide seaman he may not come in, or two or three or four. They are taken from the boat and held at detention camps and sent back on another boat at the expense of the ship that brings them in.

Senator BINGHAM. The Senator misunderstood me. I am not referring to Chinese on British ships or on American ships. I am referring to Chinese on Chinese ships. You can not take them all off the boats and send them back on other ships.

Senator KING. Yes; you can if they are mala fide seamen. Senator BINGHAM. They are virtually all mala fide citizens. Senator KING. The Senator is mistaken as to the bill. The bill provides that even a Chinese ship or an English ship if it shall come with its own nationals and they are mala fide seamen, they may not come ashore.

Senator BINGHAM. I am admitting that they are bona fide seamen. I was not applying it to mala fide seamen. I said suppose 50 of the crew desert in San Francisco. Then you can put aboard any you can find; whereas what the State Department says is that the ship shall be required to take out an equal number of aliens and a fine shall be imposed.

Senator COPELAND. I remember from my experience as health commissioner of New York City that one year we had 35 Chinamen

off a Chinese ship. We took them to the Bellevue Hospital and they all died, although I guess that probably did not enter into it. It is a very complicated system. I think we have full evidence that the State Department is in opposition. Will we hear some of the ship owners?

Senator KING. That is what we are here for.

Mr. HODGDON. May I make a short statement, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion?

Senator HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. HODGDON. Another difficulty that we foresee in this bill is that it requires these men to be taken off and detained on shore.

Senator KING. At the expense of the ship that brings them. Mr. HODGDON. Yes. Now, that contemplates detention stations in which to detain them; or, in the absence of detention stations, to detain them in a common jail. That includes a man who may be or may not be a bona fide seaman, and the question of whether or not he is a bona fide seaman is not determined until he has been confined in a common jail and comes up before an immigration board of review. I can see that foreign nations might justly object to that. I think we might object to having a man taken off an American flagship and put in a common jail pending decision as to whether

or not he was a bona fide seaman.

Senator KING. Where do we detain people now who are taken off of ships that come to our shores? We put them in jail, do we not, until it is finally determined whether they are admissible as immigrants or otherwise? This places an alleged mala fide seaman in the same category, and he is accorded the same treatment as a duke or a lord or anybody else who seeks entrance here and who is not admissible; and he is taken ashore and detained until his status is determined. Is not that true?

Mr. HODGDON. At the principal ports of entry we have detention stations but not at the numerous seaports where sailors would go. So it is really not the same situation.

Senator BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is necessary that I should go at the present moment, but I want to make sure that the committee will provide that everybody can be heard to-day or to-morrow, if possible.

Senator KING. I have no objection to that. I think we should give them an opportunity.

Senator BINGHAM. We have some witnesses here who are becoming a little nervous as the hour of 12 o'clock approaches.

Senator KING. Of course, I have no desire to restrain anybody. Senator HARRIS. We have a list of about a dozen witnesses Senator Bingham, who have asked to be heard. We will ask them to be as brief as possible.

Senator BINGHAM. I hope the testimony may be printed as soon as possible so that it may be available for Senators before they

vote.

Mr. HODGDON. Just in conclusion, we understand that sections 2, 3, and 4 are not administratively good. That has been testified to by members of the Department of Labor in past years. I just say that in passing. Their administration does not come under the Depart

ment of State, but I want to call the committee's attention to them. I want to make clear that the Department of State's interest is in sections 6 and 7; in section 6 because that section as now drafted is not an immigration measure; it appears to us to be a seamen's measure; and section 6 does not keep the alien population of the United States from being increased by illegal desertions on the part of alien seamen. Section 7 is the one which will probably give the Department the most concern, because its effect would be contrary to international comity, and interference with the historic practice of ships to bring in their own subjects under their own. flags. It is believed that these 10 protests by foreign governments which, by the way, are the largest number the department has ever received concerning these bills, and which have increased every year, indicate cause for real concern regarding our foreign relations should section 7 become law. I thank you.

Senator HARRIS. We have a list of witnesses here. Mr. McGill is the first on the list.

Mr. MCGILL. Mr. Chairman, I would very much prefer that the American Steamship Owners Association precede me. They have gone into this matter very thoroughly. I just happen to be here first because I was an early bird.

Senator COPELAND. What witness do you suggest that we should hear now?

Mr. EDWIN H. DUFF. Mr. Chairman, I am the attorney for the American Ship Owners Association. My associate, Mr. Ewers, is prepared to go on and I think he will make a very full and comprehensive presentation of the subject to the committee; but Captain Petersen from San Francisco has asked whether it would be agreeable to us to have him proceed now. That is agreeable to us, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARRIS. I think inasmuch as he is from such a distant point we should hear him now.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. WALTER J. PETERSEN, REPRESENTING THE PACIFIC AMERICAN STEAMSHIP OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE SHIP OWNERS OF THE PACIFIC COAST

Senator HARRIS. Will you give your name and state whom you represent and your occupation?

Captain PETERSEN. Walter J. Petersen, representing the Pacific American Steamship Owners Association and the Ship Owners of the Pacific Coast.

Senator HARRIS. And your address?

Captain PETERSEN. 256 Mission Street, San Francisco.

Senator COPELAND. Captain, are you here in opposition to this bill?

Captain PETERSEN. Emphatically so.

Senator COPELAND. All features of it?

Captain PETERSEN. Every bit of it, from the top to the bottom. Senator KING. He has testified a number of times.

Captain PETERSEN. I have never testified before you, Senator. Senator KING. Yes; I remember you very well. Your face has ot faded from my mind.

Senator HARRIS. Will you proceed?

Captain PETERSON. In relation to this bill, so that none may mistake my motives, I address myself to you, not as the representative of any steamship company, but as a representative of the shipping industry on the Pacific coast, as comprised by the Pacific American Steamship Association and the Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast.

First, I desire to say that I have no doubt as to the honesty of purpose and the intent of Senator King, who introduced S. 7, or of Representative Schneider, who introduced the companion bill, H. R. 4648, as they have introduced similar bills in previous Con

gresses.

Senator KING. I suppose you attribute the same honesty to the Senate which passed this bill several times?

Captain PETERSON. I have no question about their honesty. I do question their judgment.

I, also, have the same honesty of purpose and intent in opposing this bill, as I believe that the passage of such a bill would be a direct thrust into the life of our American merchant marine and, if enacted into law, would add serious and extensive operating costs, would increase the cost of administration to the Federal Government, have a tendency to cause reprisals by our foreign competitors, cause international complications, and in no sense of the word would it be an aid to our American merchant marine, nor would it stop undesirable aliens from entering into the United States.

We may assume that the Congress of the United States is supposed to represent the whole people and that actions of the Congress are predicated upon a desire to do some good for the people whom it represents. Now, who is asking for this legislation? Reading the report on the previous bill, S. 202, Seventy-first Congress, we learn that the bill is fostered by the International Seamen's Union. Four years ago this organization had about 17,000 members. Now it has but a small fraction of that number in good standing. The bill itself is little known by the rank and file of the seamen of this country, and some of the officials of the seamen's union are in opposition to its provisions. There are in the United States more than 160,000 seamen; and even if the entire 17,000 seamen who four years ago composed the International Seamen's Union were in favor of this bill, yet there are many thousands of seamen who have never expressed an opinion upon it nor asked for its enactment.

Now, on the other hand, who are opposing the bill? Every steamship owner and operator in the United States and every foreign embassy whose nationals operate ships-and can it be said that American shipowners and foreign shipowners are in accord in their opposition to this bill because of any ulterior motive? Can it be said that the men who hazard their fortunes in shipbuilding and operations and have made it a life business do not know how to handle their ships or the personnel that man them? And have the seamen's union, through their representative, all the wisdom con-cerning our merchant marine; and are our steamship operators, at home and abroad, in ignorance of their own business?

We also find the Department of State in opposition to this bill-as shown in previous Congresses and after a study of its provisions, we find that, if it were enacted into law, international complications