« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Actually, it was August 18, not May, as seems to be implied in the testimony already referred to.
I cannot concede the justice of the Maritime Commission claiming profits on voyages made voluntarily by me for my own account as an offset against losses. During the last 3 years there has been a tremendous amount of litigation between the Maritime Commission and shipowners with reference to excessive profits on operations, but I do not believe that the point has ever been raised that a ship owner has been condemned to break exactly even, which seems to be the implication in the Commission's argument in my case. Rather than have the question go begging, I have prepared work sheets Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, showing all vessel operations for different periods in detail. Work sheets Nos. 1 and 2 show all voyages beginning or ending in 1941. Work sheet No. 3 shows all voyages subsequent to May 27, 1941, the date of the proclamation of a national emergency, not including, however, the Brazilian trips. On work sheet No. 3 I show a gross profit of $5,501.79 but after allowing the $75 overhead per charter day, a net loss of $37,306.03.
On work sheet No. 4 I show all voyages subsequent to the enactment of the Ship Warrants Act, July 14, 1941. Here we have a gross loss of $9,438.20 and a net loss of $33,983.25. The reason for the losses I should explain was mainly my servicing the Central American Coffee Berth during the lean off-season months, which losses I expected to recoup during the coming coffee season. In addition to these losing off-season voyages, I made two trips for the Navy to Guantanamo, Cuba, suffering a net loss on Stanley Griffith, voyage 7, of $14,947.15 and on voyage 10 of the Stanley Griffith, $11,515.40. These voyages, however, were made by me voluntarily and for that reason have no part in my claim.
I am confident that the Maritime Commission, after perusing the detailed statements on my work sheets Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, will agree that there were no profits during any applicable period which could be used as offsets against losses on the Brazilian voyages.
CONCLUSION I ask the forbearance of Congress and the Maritime Commission for the length of this statement. However, I am anxious to present my side as fully as I can in order to make it unnecessary for others to trace through lengthy reports and documents.
For me this claim is of the utmost importance. I am a small businessman who, after many years of preparation, had been able to start an American flag steamer service on a route formerly served by a large number of foreign lines. The reward for the years of toil and expense in getting established has now been frustrated through the war.
The resulting losses, of which this is only one, have brought me to the verge of bankruptcy and the moneys derived from the payment of this claim are urgently needed for paying creditors who have borne with me these 3 years.
I am anxious to stay in the shipping business to which I have devoted a lifetime of service, and to continue to serve the American Merchant Marine and American foreign trade, for which I and my remaining nucleus of organization and equipment are well suited. Respectfully submitted.
SIGFRIED OLSEN SHIPPING Co. Dated at:
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., January 26, 1945.
MANITOWOC LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER'S RESIDENCE
FEBRUARY 13, 1945.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. BONNER, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 29)
The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 29) to repeal the act entitled "An act to authorize the conveyance of the old lighthouse keeper's residence in Manitowoc, Wis., to the Otto Oas Post, No. 659, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Manitowoc, Wis.," approved June 16, 1938, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
The purpose of the bill is stated in its title. The Otto Oas Post has advised the Commandant, United States Coast Guard, that it is no longer interested in making the purchase authorized by the act sought to be repealed, because a building suitable for the purposes of the post has already been acquired. Since conveyance to the post is directed as well as authorized by the act, its repeal is necessary in order to permit other disposal of the property.
The legislation was recommended for introduction and enactment by the Secretary of the Navy, and a copy of his letter to the Speaker of the House, with enclosure, is appended for the information of the Members.
Washington, November 30, 1944. Hon. Sam RAYBURN, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C. My DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a proposed bill to repeal the act entitled "An act to authorize the conveyance of the old lighthouse keeper's residence in Manitowoc, Wis., to the Otto Oas Post, No. 659; Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Manitowoc, Wis.," approved June 16, 1938.
The purpose of this proposed legislation is as stated in its title.
The Otto Oas Post has advised the Commandant, United States Coast Guard, by letter dated September 30, 1944, that it is no longer interested in purchasing the property in question, because a building suitable for the purposes of the post has already been acquired. A copy of that letter is attached. Since the act of June 16, 1938, directs as well as authorizes the conveyance, repeal of the act is desired in order to permit other disposal of the property.
For the foregoing reasons the Navy Department recommends enactment of the proposed legislation.
The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this proposed legislation to the Congress. Sincerely yours,
RALPH A. BARD, Acting Secretary of the Navy.
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES,
OTTO Oas Post, No. 659,
Manitowoc, Wis., September 30, 1944. THE COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES Coast GUARD,
Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At the last regular meeting of the Otto Oas Post, No. 659, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Manitowoc, Wis., it was decided that I should inform you that the post will vacate the lighthouse keeper's residence which we have been using as a clubhouse for the past few years, located at Fifth and York Streets, Manitowoc, Wis., on October 14, 1944.
We are not interested in purchasing this property, because we have acquired & suitable building for our needs as a clubhouse.
At the present time, Leo Rathsack, our custodian, occupies the upper floor of this building. We are advising him today of our vacating same.
In behalf of the post, I wish to thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. Very truly yours,
A. M. HADLEY, Quartermaster, Otto Oas Post, No. 659, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mani
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill are set out for the information of the Members of the House.
The act of June 16, 1938, is as follows: That, upon terms satisfactory to the Director of Procurement and at a price not less than 50 per centum of its value as of the date when possession of the hereinafter-described property was taken under lease by the hereinafter-designated post, as said value shall be estimated and determined by the Director of Procurement, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized and directed to convey, by quitclaim deed to the Otto Oas Post, Numbered 659, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, the old lighthouse keeper's residence in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, together with the land appurtenant thereto, being lots 1 and 2 in block 178, southwesterly corner of Fifth and York Streets, which is now leased to the said post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, under a lease expiring on December 31, 1940, such land being no longer required for use by the Lighthouse Service. Should the Otto Oas Post, Numbered 659, Veterans of Foreign Wars, cease to occupy the property for club headquarters or alienate or attempt to alienate such property, title thereto shall revert to the United States.
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT
TO TREATY RATIFICATION
FEBRUARY 13, 1945.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. KEFAUVER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
(To accompany H. J. Res. 60) The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution (H. J. Res. 60) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties, after careful consideration, report the same favorably to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.
The resolution favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary is simply stated in these words:
Hereafter treaties shall be made by the President by and with the advice and consent of both Houses of Congress.
Consideration has also been given to the following similar resolutions: House Joint Resolution 16; House Joint Resolution 26; House Joint Resolution 29; House Joint Resolution 38; House Joint Resolution 56; House Joint Resolution 57; House Joint Resolution 58; and House Joint Resolution 72.
During the Seventy-eighth Congress extensive hearings were held on pending resolutions proposing to amend the Constitution relative to the making of treaties. These hearings were printed as serial No. 21. Subsequently, House Joint Resolution 320 was reported favorably to the House (H. Rept. No. 2061). This report has again been adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary and it is incorporated herevith.
(H. Rept. No. 2061, 78th Cong., 2d sess.
THE ISSUES INVOLVED
There are two fundamental issues involved in this resolution. First, Should the House of Representatives participate in the making of treaties? and, second, Should Congress act upon treaties by a majority or by a two-thirds vote?
In considering these questions, a brief history of the two-thirds provision of the Constitution will be of interest to the Members. The motive that prompted the insertion of this provision in the Constitution was not to insure that the merits of treaties should be decisively approved, but to appease a demand arising out of the suspicions and jealousies of the original States. When an amendment to the Constitution is proposed, it is important to differentiate between provisions which were adopted as a result of the deliberately thought-out theories of political government and provisions which were placed in the Constitution as a compromise to meet local or
domestic differences. As to the latter class, it is important to consider whether the particular condition which gave rise to the provision still persists. It is, as Dr. Charles Warren, historian of the Supreme Court and eminent author on the subject, says:
That clause, as I say, is a striking illustration of the class of provisions which was inserted not on any theory of government or general political theory but was inserted solely to take care of a political condition existing, and a very burning question existed in 1787 when the Federal Convention sat. The circumstances surrounding its insertion provide an interesting illustration of the fact that, like most of the provisions of the Constitution, it can only be fully understood after a study of its historical sources and antecedents.
The two-thirds clause was only a step in a long and heated struggle which had been going on for 4 years prior to 1787 and which had been, in fact, endangering the union of the States. This heated struggle was between the Northern and Southern States to preserve what each group regarded as its special interest. The four Southern States were interested in navigation on the Mississippi and the future of New Orleans. The four New England States were interested in protecting their fishery rights. The dispute between the sections became so dangerous and violent that James Monroe, of Virginia, feared and, in fact, came very near advocating that the country should be divided into three confederacies, a southern, a middle, and a northern confederacy. The dispute between the States, the fear of the smaller States that the larger ones might unduly dominate them, led to the insertion of the two-thirds provision in the Articles of Confederation. The same domestic issue, and the same fear, was the underlying cause of its inclusion in the Constitution. Dr. Warren, in his testimony before the committee, said:
You will search the debates on the Constitution relative to the insertion of the two-thirds clause, and you will search in vain to find any political theory on which that two-thirds clause was founded.
Therefore, the provision was used as a compromise to unite 13 States into a union. The Union has long since been created and firmly cemented. We must now examine the provision, not with reference to the problem of creating the Union, but with reference to the problem of this country, of dealing in foreign affairs in an advanced era, never visualized by the founding fathers.
The founding fathers held no firm philosophy to the effect that treaties with foreign nations should be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. This is shown by the fact that on September 7, 1787, a motion of James Madison to exclude treaties of peace from the two-thirds provision was adopted without dissent. The following day the exclusion without extended discussion was eliminated.
Other reasons for the two-thirds provision were: First, it was contemplated that the President would actually advise and consult with the Senators (26 in number at the time of the adoption of the Constitution), and that the Senators would be an expert body who would participate with him in formation of treaties.
President Washington attempted to personally advise and consult with the Senate during the First Congress. The subject was a treaty with the Creek Indians History records that he was treated coolly on this occasion. He vowed he would never return, and he never did. Since that time, treaties have been handled by the Senate as other legislation. The "advice” provision of the treaty clause is obsolete.