intend to do, but I am trying to keep before me the trouble we have had all through the years in trying to meet that situation to eliminate the Filipino in particular from those ships.

Senator KING. You want the Chinese and Japanese retained and the Filipinos excluded?

Mr. FLYNN. No: I do not. What I am trying to get at is this: If this bill is enacted into law with section 7 as it now stands, the Chinese in the steward's department would necessarily have to get out. President Furuseth here has contended many times as to what that section will do. As I understand it now, he says it is going to make jobs available for white men. Any kind of white men, of course, that is all right. We do not deny that. But the real competent white man that is supposed at least to be efficient--and efficiency is what counts in the proper operation of any ship-is not available on the Pacific coast. I question seriously whether he is available from a national point of view in the States. The result of this thing is that the Filipino is going to be hired. They say that there are ships. I am accepting what they say as the truth. I have no way to find out differently. They can not come to Congress and seek redress for further moneys in so far as mail contracts and so forth are concerned, and the only other avenue out is to cut the wages of the men on deck and down below to make up the wages by reason of the changes in the steward's department.

The International Seamen's Union of America, as such, is on record as to what their position really is with reference to the American merchant marine. We are mindful of the testimony that has been submitted here on the other side. We are mindful of the condition of the shipping business as a general proposition throughout the country to-day, and especially on the Pacific coast; and we do not want to be placed in the position of having anything that would interfere with the proper prosecution of an American merchant marine.

Senator KING. As I understand you-and I do not want to misquote you-you think that section 7 of this bill would exclude Japanese and Chinese upon American boats?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. And that that would be disadvantageous for two reasons: First, because we have not enough Americans to take the places of the Japanese and Chinese; and, second, if we have enough who are under the American flag to take their places, they would be Filipinos?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator KING. So you are pleading now, if I understand you, for the Chinese and the Japanese to be retained rather than the Filipinos who are under our flag?

Mr. FLYNN. No, sir. I am trying to convey the idea to you that we are trying to choose between two evils; and we believe that if the bill is drawn somewhat differently the provisions of the JonesWhite Act will eventually work out the solution as to the 100 per cent down below. But we also feel this, that the whole center of fire on section 7. as I understand it, is the extra cost of operation; and we are trying to get out from underneath the responsibility of that character. We feel that when choosing between the lesser

of two evils the Chinese would be the most advantageous at this particular time.

Senator KING. If you will pardon me, I had not understood that any objection had been offered by any of the witnesses-and I may be in error-to section 7 on the ground of the argument cost. The reason assigned, as I interpreted the witnesses, was that it might be provocative of international controversy and that it seemed unwise to exclude from entry to our ports persons who come from colonies of Great Britain or other countries on the ships of Great Britain and those countries that have colonies where, under the law, they were excluded. Your point is that the added cost would arise out of the fact that instead of Japanese or Chinese

Mr. FLYNN. Japanese could not be on there, Senator, not on those ships; but it is by reason of the competition.

Senator KING. Then, Japanese are not on American ships?

Mr. FLYNN. No, sir.

Senator KING. There is nothing to prohibit their employment now, is there, on American vessels?

Mr. FLYNN. No.

Senator KING. They are not on American vessels for the reason that the Japanese pay rather large wages, and the Japanese prefer to be on their own ships with wages nearly as great as those paid for like employment on American ships.

Mr. FLYNN. The Japanese never made it a practice to sail very much on American ships.

Senator KING. But the Chinese do.

Mr. FLYNN. I will try to convey to you what is in my mind. Senator KING. I think I understand your position, Mr. Flynn.

Mr. FLYNN. Here is the idea, Senator: Those ships on the Pacific coast, particularly in the steward's department, have always employed Chinese, and the traveling public has been accustomed to that particular service. During my travels on shipboard and when I served as a practical man it appeared to me that the public is most concerned about the money they pay and the service they expect to get in return. A change overnight, you may say, in this particular respect, to our way of thinking will be partly responsible at least for a change in passenger traffic to the vessels of the Japanese and British flags that operate into the Orient out of British Columbia.

Senator KING. Did you make any objections to the White bill which will within a short time require that 66% per cent of the crew shall be American?

Mr. FLYNN. No, sir; I did not.

Senator KING. You favored that, didn't you?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. Even though it excluded Chinese?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. It was calculated to reduce the number of Chinese that were sailing on American boats as a part of the crew?

Mr. FLYNN. That is true.

Senator KING. Yet you are now unwilling to have legislation that would exclude still more Chinese?

Mr. FLYNN. No, sir; I am not. Do not misunderstand me, Senator. Senator KING. This bill would result in that, would it not?

Mr. FLYNN. We fear the immediate change; and furthermore, our experience in so far as the seamen's act is concerned has taught us to be very cautious. We feel that if this bill as it is drafted now becomes a law we will have to do what we have done with the seamen's act in defending it in the courts. Our organization is in a position where it can not stand that task.

Senator KING. Let us get down to the concrete thing. Your objection to section 7 is that if it shall be enacted into law it will preclude the employment of Chinese upon American ships?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes; it will.

Senator KING. And will permit, as it is now, the employment of Filipinos because they are under the American flag?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes.

Senator KING. Then you prefer the employment of Chinese upon American ships to Filipinos who are under the American flag? Is that your position?

Mr. FLYNN. No, sir; it is not my position. That is not the thought that is in my mind at all.

Senator KING. You are objecting, are you not, to section 7 because it will preclude the employment of Chinese upon American ships? Mr. FLYNN. As a temporary proposition.

Senator KING. Call it tempcrary, one day or one year or whatnot, I do not care; you are objecting to section 7 because of that fact, are you not?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. But it would not preclude the employment of Filipinos?

Mr. FLYNN. No; it would not.

Senator KING. The Filipinos, you think, would perhaps take the place of Chinese if they could not get Americans?

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. Have you anything else to state?

Mr. FLYNN. No, sir.

Senator KING. By the way, how long since you were at sea as a practical seaman?

Mr. FLYNN. Prior to 1906.

Senator KING. And you have not been a seaman, as that term is employed, since 1906?

Mr. FLYNN. Prior to 1906.

Senator KING. But since then you have not been a seaman?

Mr. FLYNN. Not as a seaman proper.

Senator KING. What did you do when you were a seaman prior to 1906?

Mr. FLYNN. The last thing I did was to work in the fireroom.
Senator KING. How old are you now, Mr. Flynn?

Mr. FLYNN. I guess I am about 56 or 57.

Senator KING. When did you become a seaman? When was your first service as a seaman?

Mr. FLYNN. I can not exactly give you dates on that, Senator. I was born on the other side and started my sailing on the other side. Senator KING. I am not inquiring into that. How long were you an active seaman, one year or two years?

Mr. FLYNN. I guess it must have been, roughly speaking, 12 or 14 years.

STATEMENT OF C. W. SANDERS, REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD

Senator KING. Will you state your name and whom you represent? Mr. SANDERS. C. W. Sanders, representing the United States Shipping Board. I have been instructed by the United States Shipping Board to present to this committee a copy of the resolution adopted by the United States Shipping Board under date of February 27, 1931, with reference to bill S. 202, which was introduced in the Seventy-first Congress. This same bill, with slight modifications, has been introduced at this session as S. 7.

The resolution above referred to is as follows:

Whereas the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives has asked the United States Shipping Board for suggestions touching the merits of bill S. 202 and the propriety of its passage: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the United States Shipping Board does not approve the passage of S. 202 in its present form and at the present time, because the board believes the bill to be inimical to the best interests of the American merchant marine.

Senator KING. The resolution, I observe, gives no reason at all for the objection to the bill.

Mr. SANDERS. Exactly. The shipping board is now before the House Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries, and their legislative counsel is there to explain it.

Senator KING. Was the board so devoid of reason in their opposition that they could not state that?

Mr. SANDERS. No.

Senator KING. They did not state any, though, did they?
Mr. SANDERS. No; not to this committee.

Senator KING. Well, in the resolution?

Mr. SANDERS. No.

Senator KING. Do you know why they consider the bill inimical? Mr. SANDERS. I could not answer for the board.

Senator KING. I am asking you if you know.

Mr. SANDERS. No; I do not know. I have heard it said, but I could not speak for the board. However, they will prepare a statement as an analysis of the bill if this committee wishes it.

Senator KING. No; we will deem it necessary to have some member of the board present. Is that all you have to say, Mr. Sanders? Mr. SANDERS. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. The committee will now take a o'clock p. m.

recess until 3 (Thereupon, at 1 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 3 o'clock

p. m.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee met at 3 o'clock p. m., pursuant to the recess, Senator William H. King presiding.

Senator KING. Mr. Furuseth, do you care to make any statement before the committee adjourns?

Mr. FURUSETH. Yes.

Senator KING. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW FURUSETH, PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL SEAMEN'S UNION OF AMERICA

Mr. FURUSETH. Some of the speakers against the bill speak against the entire bill. Some of them especially oppose the section of the bill which provides for the examination in quarantine of the crew of the ship as she comes in, so as to ascertain who is a real seaman, accustomed to the sea, fairly well able to do the work that he should do under his rating, in which case he is held to be a bona fide seaman. Such bona fide seamen can go ashore from the vessel as much as he likes, and there is no interference with either the vessel or the crew. The other kind of men who are coming in by the thousands—it has been estimated that more than 500,000 have come in during the last 10 years-are men who come as seamen when, as a matter of fact, they are not seamen, but are simply signed on as seamen in order to get them into the United States in violation of the immigration laws. These we call mala fide seamen.

The mala fide seamen are to be ordered from the quarantine to a place of detention, there to remain until an opportunity be found for sending them whence they came; either to the port in which they were shipped, or to their native country, all of the expense to be at the cost of the vessel which brought them. We believe that to be entirely just, because when the vessel prepares to leave its home country, under its own laws it is supposed to have, and it is the shipowners' business to see that they have an efficient crew; and the laws of all the countries provide for a minimum crew. If the masters and shipowners obey the laws of their own countries on those questions they will have no trouble at all in coming to the United States if this bill is passed.

The third question in this bill is that the exclusions laws are to be made applicable to the seamen, in so far as that is possible. Under this bill any sovereign nation may carry its own people, citizens, or subjects, or the citizens or subjects of any other nation, provided they are not racially excluded from the United States; they can carry their own people, but not the people who live in their colonies, possessions, or mandates, if they happen to be racially excluded. In other words, this bill follows exactly the line of the immigration law in that direction; and the purpose of the bill is to plug up a hole in the immigration law which has resulted in more than 500,000 people coming in here illegally and mingling with the population in the underworlds of cities, or taking the jobs of those who are honestly here, either native or naturalized, or legally entered, in industrial pursuits and driving the others into the bread lines, or whatever it may be.

Complaint is made about the cost to the United States of this bill. The cost, if any, will be very insignificant. They must examine all the people who come in anyway, and to ascertain whether they are in fact seamen will take but very little more examination. Should they find that they have not in the Immigration Service men who are capable of judging by talking with a man whether he is a seaman or not, whether he is a fireman or a water tender or not, whether he knows anything about his business of cooking and serving food on board a ship or not-if they have not got such men in the Immigra