highest wages to labor in the construction of our vessels in the United States. We pay the highest wages in the world on shipboard. Our standards of living and subsistence are higher than those of our foreign competitors. Thousands of our freighters receive no Government aid but must compete with subsidized vessels of foreign nations. We hope Congress will not add to our burdens, already too heavy for us, by adding to our operation costs items that this bill would entailyes, and add to Government expenditure without gaining a single advantage to the Nation, by the enactment of this bill, which would increase international complications and impair our foreign trade by reason of the dissensions this bill would incur. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. We will now hear from Mr. Carr, a member of the State Department STATEMENT OF HON. WILBUR J. CARR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: The object of this bill, which we understand to be to provide for the deportation of alien seamen unlawfully in this country and to prevent the entry of alien seamen contrary to our laws, is heartily approved by the Department of State. That Department is and has always been in sympathy with the strict enforcement of our immigration and deportation laws and with any proper and practicable plan for the protection of the wage earners in the United States and for safeguarding the welfare of American seamen. I think I can say with pardonable pride the record of the State. Department in the energetic and effective administration of those provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924 which come within its jurisdiction, is a very favorable record. Now, while in entire agreement with the declared object of the measure before you, the Department of State is wholly in disagreement with the method provided by which that object is to be attained. In the first place, it is believed that the application of the provisions of this bill would delay the entry of vessels, cause inconvenience to the traveling public, would impose undue hardship upon seamen, would add greatly to the expense of administration, and would not be, for the purpose for which it is designed, as effective as the strict enforcement of the Immigration Act of 1924, particularly of section 20 thereof. I assume you are familiar with that section that; section 20 gives the Government full authority to hold all mala fide seamen aboard ships upon a penalty on the master or owner of the vessel of $1,000 in each case of a seaman who is allowed to depart from the vessel either before inspection or after a detention order has been served by the immigration inspector. We are informed by the Department of Labor that since 1927 there have been some 53,000 such orders served on masters of vessels and that the existing law is much more satisfactory than this measure under consideration would be because under the existing law the alien seaman is kept aboard the vessel which brought him in and consequently none of the difficulties in effecting his departure from the port of entry which might be expected to occur under the proposed measure are now experienced under the existing law. Mr. SCHULTE. Mr. Carr, may I ask you a question? How many fines were paid by shipping interests last year, have you any idea? Mr. CARR. I could furnish that information, Mr. Schulte, but my impression is if the Labor Department has not already given it, it will give it when it comes before you. The CHAIRMAN. They are here now. Mr. CARR. I know they have that information fully compiled as to the number of cases in which orders have been issued and fines collected, and they amount to a very large sum. As between this simple method of detaining seamen on board vessels and placing on the master, under penalty of a fine of $1,000, the responsibility of taking them out of the country, and the complicated and expensive method set up in this bill of taking them off their ships and putting them in places of detention, which in some cases would unquestionably, so I am informed, be a common jail, the practice under existing law would seem more practical and effective. The method proposed by the measure before you would, in addition to being vastly more expensive, impose greater hardships upon the seamen and probably result in many cases in complete failure to bring about the deportation of the seamen on other vessels as is proposed for this very simple reason, if no other, that it presupposes the issuance of a passport by a foreign government. Sometimes you can get a passport from a foreign government and sometimes you cannot. And if you cannot get a passport, you cannot deport the seaman into the goreign government's territory. That particular difficulty is not encountered at all under present circumstances in holding a seaman on the vessel. He goes out automatically, as he never had any entry into this country, and the master is responsible for taking him out. It has been claimed before this committee, and certainly before the Senate committee, over and over, that to detain a seaman on board ship in a port of the United States would constitute involuntary servitude and therefore be contrary to the Constitution. The case of Bailey v. Alabama (219 U. S. 240) has been cited again and again in support of that allegation. The CHAIRMAN. What was that case again, Mr. Carr? Mr. CARR. Bailey v. Alabama (219 U. S. 240). I had that question carefully examined by the law officers of the Department of State and it was examined by the law officers of the Department of Labor; they are unanimously of the opinion that the case has no application to this particular issue. On the other hand, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on December 17, 1929 (Navigazione Liberia Triestina v. United States, 36 F. 2d 631), upheld the authority of the immigration officials at the port of entry in imposing a fine upon the master of the vessel for failing to keep seamen on board in accordance with the requirements of section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924. The section of this proposed measure in which the Department of State is especially interested is section 7. On January 22, 1932, I appeared, under instructions from the Secretary of State, before the Senate Committee on Immigration and produced the protests of some 10 nations against this measure. The CHAIRMAN. On this particular bill, on this particular legislation? Mr. CARR. Not this particular bill, but on bills similar to it whic as you know, Mr. Chairman, have been pending in the two House for a number of years. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. CARR. Section 7 in this bill is substantially the section that wɛ. pending in the other bill in 1932. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. CARR. Those protests are set out on pages 2 to 13 of the hearings on the bill S. 7, which was the number of the bill at that time The CHAIRMAN. That was the King bill? Mr. CARR. That was the King bill. And those hearings are doubtless in possession of the committee. The nations protesting agains this section were Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Canade Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium. Those protes have been repeated again and again, and what I said then is equall true now, today. Within the last week two representatives of foreign nations have called upon me to reiterate their protest against this section 7. This section would permit vessels to enter ports of the United, States with members of the crew who are racially ineligible to citizen ship if such members should be citizens of the country under whos flag the vessel is registered, but would not permit the entry of such vessels if such members of the crew were citizens of a dependency the country under whose flag the vessel is registered. In other words, this measure proposes to say to Great Britain, for example. "You may bring into United States ports as members of the crews of your vessels British subjects, except Chinese persons, who are subjects of your British colony of Hong Kong, or East Indians, who are subjects of your colonial possession of India." In turn, we propose to say to China, "You may bring into United States ports as members of crews of your vessels Chinese persons who are Chinese citizens. although racially not entitled to citizenship in this country." We propose to say to the Netherlands, "You may bring into the United States as members of your crews of your vessels Dutch subjects, but you may not bring as members of the crews Chinese who are bona fide resident subjects of your Dutch East Indian colonies", and therefore racially excluded from citizenship in the United States. We, in turn, would say to Japan, "Although your subjects are racially excluded from citizenship in this country, you may nevertheless bring them in as members of your crews and enter your vessels into our ports." So, we propose to tell Great Britain and Holland which of their nationals they may employ upon their vessels coming into our ports, and we decline to permit them to bring their vessels into our ports if they have on board nationals of their colonies who are racially ineligible to citizenship. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, do I understand by your statement if they say to the English boat who happens to have one that is racially excluded under our immigration laws that that boat would be held up? Mr. CARR. The boat would not even be allowed to enter, under this bill, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Under this bill? Mr. CARR. The boat would not be allowed to enter the port of New York or the port of San Francisco. The CHAIRMAN. They would have to take him off? Mr. CARR. The vessel could not come to the port at all. The CHAIRMAN. It could not come to the port at all. And that would apply to all the others? Mr. CARR. That would apply to all vessels of Holland, Great Britain, or France or any of the nations having colonies and subjects in the barred zone, whose subjects of those colonies or dependencies are not eligible to citizenship in this country, but, on the other hand, we would say to China and Japan, "You may bring your people although they are racially excluded." The CHAIRMAN. Because they are nationals? Mr. CARR. Because they are nationals of the mother country. Mr. CARR. Of the mother country. Now, our Department feels that that involves a discrimination against a group of nations, and that it is inadvisable to introduce such discriminations in legislation. Mr. SCHULTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Carr a question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; Mr. Schulte. Mr. SCHULTE. In my bill it says on line 7 on page 4 that— Section 13 of the Immigration Act of 1924, except that any ship of the merchan 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. Mr. CARR. Yes, of any citizen; that is the citizen is covered. Mr. SCHULTE. Many citizens who may be aboard that ship may be of any nation. This is aimed directly at the seamen; is that not true, Mr. Carr? Mr. CARR (reading): 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. That merely goes back to what I was trying to say, that a subject of one of the dependencies of any one of these sovereign countries, who is racially ineligible to citizenship in this country, or ineligible to be permitted to enter this country as an immigrant, could not serve on one of their vessels; or rather, the vessel on which he serves could not be allowed to enter the United States port under this bill. And yet we turn right around and we say to Japan and China that their subjects, although racially excluded from citizenship, or racially excluded from being immigrants into this country, may nevertheless come on their vessels and constitute the crew of their vessels. Mr. SCHULTE. What amendment would you suggest, Mr. Carr, in lieu of that to make this airtight and stop the shipping interests from smuggling in aliens? Mr. CARR. The Department of Labor will have a substitute for this provision which we can accept, and which will avoid all of these difficulties. Mr. SCHULTE. When will you have that in here? Have you any idea? Mr. CARR. Whenever they testify, I am sure they will have something of that sort to submit. This is not all that this measure proposes which our Department feels that it is undesirable to have in legislation. It is proposed that, for an example, if a Dutch vessel should arrive in a port of the United States with a member of the crew who is a bona fide national of the Dutch East Indies, an immigration inspector shall go on board that vessel and take off that member of the crew, put him in a place of detention, and deport him on another vessel at the expense of the vessel on which he arrived. Practically every maritime nation has. protested against that provision. It puts the United States in a position of telling foreign governments whom they should employ upon their own vessels. It cannot be contested that the United States has a right to determine whether the alien members of the crew of any foreign vessel shall be permitted to land in this country, but it is very questionable whether the United States has the right to undertake to tell a foreign government what kind of crews it shall carry on its own ships and which of its own nationals it may employ on its own ships. If we do not want to let them land in this country it is within our power to prohibit landing, but not to undertake to regulate employment on foreign ships. We feel the United States is itself endeavoring to build up a merchant marine, it is endeavoring to obtain for its ships considerate and favorable treatment in foreign ports. As time goes on that ought to be more and more the case. Likewise, we are endeavoring in every proper way to improve our relations with other nations, and I think every person realizes the importance of that in these days. With these objects in mind, it seems to the State Department that every effort should be made to avoid the enactment of legislation such as this, which is likely to result in retaliatory measures on the part of foreign governments or create irritations which inevitably will prove obstacles to the disposition of other more important questions. It is believed that the anactment of section 7 of this bill would accomplish nothing which cannot be better accomplished under existing legislation and would be provocative and cause results which would be exceedingly undesirable and unprofitable. I personally think that everything that this bill seeks to accomplish by way of preventing the illegal entry into this country of seamen who have not a right to be here, can be accomplished under section 20 of the act of 1924. The CHAIRMAN. You mean by deportation? Mr. CARR. By simply an immigration order by the inspector when he finds a mala fide seaman on board the vessel in port that the seaman shall be kept on board the vessel, be taken out of the port, and not allowed to enter. Under the law the master is under a penalty of $1,000 to keep him on board. Mr. KRAMER. Yes, sir; but, Mr. Carr, suppose you have a situation there about which I have just asked the prior witness, Mr. Peterson, that the seaman seems to be a regular seaman and legitimate in every respect, and you approve of him going ashore after you have made your investigation under section 20? Mr. CARR. If he is a bona fide seaman under the La Follette Law, you have to let him off if he wants 60 days' shore leave. |