Senator KING. Secretary Hughes held, did he not, in a letter addressed to the comittee, that section 7 did not conflict with any treaty that we had with any country.

Mr. CARR. My recollection is that that is so insofar as the letter of the treaty is meant. I have not read Secretary Hughes's letter for some little time.

Senator KING. I have a copy of it here.

Mr. CARR. And I am not claiming that the bill is in conflict with the letter of the treaties. I do claim, however, that it is certainly in conflict with the spirit of the treaties.

On January 17, 1928, the Netherlands, in protesting against Senate Bill No. 1941, said:

If the bill should come into force, the strange fact would occur that a ship carrying the Netherland flag would not be allowed to have certain subjects of her own country in her crew when entering a port of the United States.

They feel that very keenly because they employ on their vessels a good many natives of the Dutch East Indies who are racially Chinese or Javanese, and under this bill they would not be able to employ any of those people on their vessels trading with the United States; whereas Japan, on the other hand, could come in with an entire crew of Japanese; yet the Chinese and Javanese seamen are subjects of the Netherlands Government.

The latest protest which the Netherland Government sent us was January 2, 1932, in which they said:

The Royal Netherland Legation begs leave to point out once again to the Department of State that the proposed legislation, if enacted, would have a most detrimental effect on the Netherland mercantile marine in general and in the case of certain companies would even seriously jeopardize the position of their services to United States ports.

A considerable number of Netherland steamships, especially those which ply between the Netherland East Indies and western ports, are to a great extent manned by Javanese, Malays, etc., all subjects of the Netherlands, and by Chinese and other Asiatics, who are in many cases also Netherland subjects.

These vessels would, if the provision in question should come into force, be compelled to either cease calling at United States ports or discharge all the Asiatic members of their crews even those who are Netherland subjects and replace them by non-Asiatics, which would in many cases be impossible as there is not always a sufficient number of white seamen obtainable in the Netherland East Indian home ports of the ships in question.

Apart from the hardships and injustice the application of this provision would cause it would hardly seem reasonable that a vessel flying the Netherland flag and being governed by the Netherland laws should not be allowed to have certain of the subjects of her own country among her crew when entering a port of the United States.

It is obvious that this provision (“full crew" section 6) will in many cases cause delay and considerable pecuniary loss to Netherland vessels and it would seem hardly fair to force the latter to engage a number of-in certain cases— undesirables merely in order to bring the crew up to its full complement, the more so as it is impossible for the masters of the ships to guard against the desertions which cause these vacancies, the United States law not allowing them to take legal action against the culprits.

In view of the above-stated reasons the Royal Netherland Government would highly appreciate it if full consideration could be given by the United States Government and Congress to the very important Netherland interests, which would be endangered by the enactment of the bill in question.

The Norwegian Government said that if the bill be passed, undoubtedly it will cause many difficulties and great expense to Norwegian ships and that the provisions of the bill will in frequent

cases result in extraordinarily heavy expenses to the ships as well as inconvenience to ships, captains, and often to the seamen themselves.

A further protest was submitted by Norway on December 28, 1931, to the effect that the Norwegian Government considered the bill to be of a very drastic character and that in their opinion it would undoubtedly create difficulties for Norwegian vessels in American ports. In taking particular exception to sections 3 and 7 of the bill, they stated:

The bill, if passed, undoubtedly will cause many difficulties and great expense to their ships.

And that

These provisions will in frequent cases result in extraordinary heavy expenses to the ships as well as inconvenience to ships, captains, and often to the seamen themselves.

Particular objection is made to sections 3, 6, and 7 of the bill.

A further protest was lodged by the Norwegian Government on December 28, 1931, to the effect that the

* Government considers the bill to be of a very drastic character and which in its opinion undoubtedly will create difficulties for Norwegian vessels in American ports.

In taking particular exception to sections 3 and 7 of the bill it is stated:

In the opinion of the Norwegian Government the measure mentioned (section 3) appears to be contrary to the universally recognized rule which leaves it to the home country to decide what provisions are to apply with reference to the composition of the crews of its National vessels.

And that

Norwegian vessels operating, for instance, in far Oriental waters, would, under this provision, when chartered from American ports, be prevented from having among its crew oriental seamen from the barred-zone countries which for them in many instances amounts to a necessity, considering existing conditions in these countries. On the other hand, vessels with their home ports in the barred-zone countries, may freely bring in the same kind of seamen among their crews. It does not seem doubtful that such a difference in the treatment of the vessels will signify discrimination against vessels sailing under the Norwegian flag.

The Swedish Government, on January 13, 1928, and again on December 23, 1931, submitted a protest and said:

From an international point of view objection can also be raised against the provision of the bill according to which a seaman, even if he never went ashore, could be taken off a foreign ship-by force if necessary-and sent home on another ship * * *. Furthermore, in case a seaman deserted a ship immediately before it departure, the ship would be forced, according to the provisions in the bill, to postpone its departure until another seaman was signed on to fill the place, which might take a long time and cause considerable loss.

Those are the protests which have been submitted to us by 10 foreign governments. We think they are worthy of your very serious consideration, because we in this country are trying to build up a mercantile marine; we are trying to extend our own shipping interests abroad and we feel that we ought not to set up in this country, we ought not to enact legislation in this country, which may invite retaliation which would injure our shipping interests in foreign

countries.

I want to add again that the State Department is in favor of getting out of this country all alien seamen who ought not to be here. It simply differs with you in the character of the measure by which you undertake to accomplish that; and it thinks that the ultimate cost of a measure like this may be out of all proportion to the advantage which may be derived from it as we understand it. I wish to submit the following statement of the views of the Department of State:

Approximately 1,000,000 alien seamen arrive in United States ports during a fiscal year and are examined by the Public Health Service and the Immigration Bureau officials. Of this number, the record of desertions as shown by the figures of the Bureau of Immigration during the past five years has been as follows:

In other words, the percentage of desertions during the past five years has averaged approximately two-tenths of 1 per cent of the total number of alien seamen arriving in this country. It may be noted that the number of desertions has shown a steady and a marked decline since the fiscal year ended June 30, 1927.

The Immigration Bureau estimates that about two-thirds of these deserters eventually return to their seafaring employment shortly after leaving their vessels. The remaining one-third remain in the United States, which would mean that, for example, about 4,199 remained in the fiscal year 1927-28; about 3,039 in 1929–30; and about 1,114 in 1930-31.

There is no way under the law for these deserters, while in the United States, to legalize their entry for permanent residence, because in order to enter for permanent residence they must present to the immigration authorities immigration visas which can only be obtained from American consular officers in foreign countries.

The bill introduced by Senator King appears to embody the view of the International Seamen's Union of America, and is intended to close the door against these deserting seamen by providing:

(a) For the deportation as passengers of mala fide seamen. (b) For carrying of a full crew upon eastbound voyages.

(c) For practical substitution of seamen of white races for those ineligible to American citizenship and employed upon American and foreign vessels.

However, the view of the union as set forth in a petition and memorial of Andrew Furuseth, president International Seamen's Union of America, and chairman of its legislative committee, is that

The purpose of this bill is to stop the violation of our immigration laws, and incidentally to remove unfair competition from American ships and American seamen. (See Cong. Rec. of February 20, 1931, p. 5474.)

That these seamen should not be permitted to desert and remain in the United States admits of no argument. The question of possible unfair competition to American ships and American seamen from the shipping of other nations is, however, quite a different matter and if the desertion of alien seamen in the United States is to be stopped

it should be done by sound means. It is not believed that bill S. 7 is such a measure for the following reasons:

Sections 2, 3, and 4 provide for the examination of every alien arriving on any vessel in a port of the United States, declaring to be an immigrant, any alien not found to be a bona fide seaman, allowing such alien an appeal to the Secretary of Labor, and if the case be decided against the seaman, he shall be deported as a passenger upon a vessel other than that upon which he arrived.

These sections are regarded as unworkable and unduly expensive because:

(a) The present immigration staff is insufficient.

(b) There are inadequate detention stations for seamen and hence resort to ordinary jails pending determining of the facts in each case would be nec

essary.

(c) The bill contains no provision making departure of seamen compulsory. (d) The bill contains inadequate provision to secure repayment of advances for sustenance, etc.

Section 5 providing for hospitalization of disabled or diseased seamen is unobjectionable.

Section 6 requiring vessels entering ports of the United States with crews mostly obtained abroad to carry when leaving a United States port a crew of at least equal the number of the crew when entering (not including members lost by death or hospitalization) seems unobjectionable if amended so as to enable a vessel, instead of taking out the full number brought in, to take out additional seamen on a later trip or on another vessel of the same line, who have not been admitted to the United States for permanent residence and requiring ample bond to enforce compliance.

Section 7 is especially objectionable to the Department of State because of its effect upon our foreign relations.

Vessels of foreign states may not, under this section, bring into the United States as members of their crew, bona fide seamen, who are citizens or subjects or inhabitants of any of their colonies, dependencies, or mandates, who are racially excluded from coming into the United States as immigrants.

This would have the effect of interfering with established customs of the sea, for example, of preventing English or Dutch vessels from bringing into ports of the United States such seamen residing in their East Indian possessions, although such seamen are subjects of such countries. Moreover, the bill provides that racially inadmissible seamen

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.

In this connection protests against Senate bill No. 7 have been received from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. A protest was also received from Canada against S. 1941.

It may be noted that under the terms of the bill, Japanese ships may continue to bring Japanese seamen in their crews who are employed on a wage scale believed to be cheaper than that paid European or American seamen. It would seem, therefore, that the bill

would discriminate in favor of Japanese vessels as against ships of European countries. Moreover, American ships employing orientals would be obliged to replace such members of their crew with American or European sailors paid on a higher wage scale than competing Japanese ships.

It is not unreasonable to believe that another effect of section 7 of the bill would be to divert trans-Pacific shipping to Vancouver, at which port ships carrying oriental crews may enter, which would work to the detriment not only of American ports but of American railways, in that the long continental haul for freight would go to Canadian railways.

A further reason for considering S. 7 objectionable at this time is that it has been estimated that the placing in effect of this legislation would involve an annual outlay of $275,000 and a loss in fines imposed under existing law amounting to approximately $325,000 a year, making the total additional cost of the bill about $600,000 a

year.

Now, with your permission, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I should like to be excused to attend a committee hearing in the House. Senator KING. I would like to ask this question of you before you depart, Mr. Carr: Under the present immigration laws we have a large number of inspectors at the ports, so that immigrants, or those seeking access to our shores, are subjected to inspection and exami

nation.

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. Persons on board freight ships, as well as passenger ships, who cross the Atlantic or the Pacific, for that matter, are subjected to inspection upon their arrival at our ports to see whether they have any disease or physical disability that would prevent them from coming ashore in the United States.

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Senator KING. Everybody has to be inspected, then, who comes to our shores now, whether they are seamen or whether they are proposed immigrants.

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Senator KING. It would require no larger force of inspectors under this bill than already exists, would it?

Mr. CARR. I am only basing my statement to you upon information which I got from that branch of the Government which has that work in charge; and my information is that it would cost something like $275,000 in additional money for the administrative operations and expense incident to carrying out this measure; and that there would be a reduction in fines of something like $325,000 resulting from this measure, which makes the total cost something like $600,000. I can not go into details of that; I am quoting somebody else when I give you the figures, but I presume they are reasonably

accurate.

Senator KING. The diminution in the amount of fines would be advantageous, would it not, because that would mean there were less infractions of the law?

Mr. CARR. Possibly so; I had not taken that point of view.