Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

TO AMEND SECTION 27 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF

1920.

COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, October 28, 1921.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. William S. Greene (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, this hearing is on H. R. 6645, and I have two communications here I want to read and put in the record.

The bill reads as follows:

"[H. R. 6645, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session.]

"A BILL To amend section 27 of the act entitled 'An act to provide for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine, to repeal certain emergency legislation, and provide for the disposition, regulation, and use of property acquired thereunder, and for other purposes,' approved June 5, 1920.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 27 of the act of June 5, 1920, entitled 'An act to provide for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine, to repeal certain emergency legislation, and provide for the disposition, regulation, and use of property acquired thereunder, and for other purposes,' is hereby amended to read as follows:

666

SEC. 27. That no merchandise shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture thereof, between points in the United States, including Districts, Territories, and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States, or vessels to which the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade is extended by sections 18 or 22 of this act: Provided, That this section shall not apply to merchandise transported between points within the continental United States, including Alaska, over through routes heretofore or hereafter recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission for which routes rate tariffs have been or shall hereafter be filed with said commission when such routes are in part over Canadian rail lines and their own or other connecting water facilities: Provided further, That this section shall not become effective upon the Yukon River until the Alaska Railroad shall be completed and the Shipping Board shall find that proper facilities will be furnished for transportation by persons citizens of the United States for properly handling the traffic.'"

(The letters referred to by the chairman follow :)

Hon. WILLIAM S. GREENE,

NEW ENGLAND FISH CO.,

Boston, Mass., July 29, 1921.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

SIR: We desire to call your attention to H. R. 6645, introduced by Mr. Sutherland of Alaska. The purpose of this bill is to amend section 27 of the act of June 5, 1920, entitled "An act to provide for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine, etc.," commonly known as the Jones bill. The only change made in section 27 is to substitute the word " including for the word "excluding," in line 13 of section 27.

Section 27 provides:

"That no merchandise shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture thereof, between points in the United States, includ

[blocks in formation]

ing Districts, Territories, and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessels than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States, and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States, or vessels to which the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade is extended by sections 18 or 22 of this act: Provided, That this section shall not apply to merchandise transported between points within the continental United States, excluding Alaska, over through routes heretofore or hereafter recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission for which routes rate tariffs have been or shall hereafter be filed with said commission when such routes are in part over Canadian rail lines and their own or other connecting water facilities."

The purport of H. R. 6645 is to place Alaska upon an equal basis with the States of the Union. By the express terms of the proviso, Alaska is deprived of the privileges extended by the act to other sections of the continental United States. The proposed bill eliminates this discrimination and attempts to place Alaska upon a parity with the balance of the United States.

Our company is extensively engaged in the fresh-fish business. It has a plant at Vancouver, British Columbia. Its fish are caught at Ketchikan and other points in Alaska. The fish are brought on Canadian vessels from Ketchikan and other points in Alaska to Vancouver. The fish are entered through the customshouse at Vancouver and become a part of the general assets and property of the Dominion of Canada. There are no American vessels suitable for transportating the fish from Alaska to Vancouver, and the amount of the tonnage is insufficient to justify the equipment and operation of American vessels for this purpose. If we are prohibited from transporting such fish from Vancouver into the United States, it will work a serious hardship upon us, as well as increase the price of halibut and other varieties of fish to the ultimate consumer in Boston, New York, and elsewhere. On the other hand, if the fish caught at Ketchikan and other points in Alaska can not be handled through Vancouver or Prince Rupert, the fishermen and citizens of Alaska must be the sufferers, as they will be unable to realize for their fish the prices that they are now getting from us.

Section 27 affects us materially, but it likewise works a greater hardship upon the residents of Alaska engaged in the fishing business. It also discriminates against all of the people of Alaska and materially affects them likewise. We know of no reason why Alaska should be treated differently from other sections of the continental United States. The inhabitants are citizens of the United States, and it would seem that they should be entitled to the same consideration by Congress as other citizens who happen to reside within the continental United States.

We might enumerate some of the discriminations in section 27:

(a) Merchandise may be shipped west from New York, Boston, Chicago, or other eastern United States points via the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to Vancouver or Prince Rupert and there placed on a Canadian (British) vessel and carried to Seattle, Portland, or San Francisco legally but not to Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway, or any other Alaskan port. If it is thus carried to Skagway the merchandise is subject to forfeiture thereof to the United States.

It is perfectly legal to carry it south to Seattle, but it is a crime to carry it north to Skagway. This discrimination affects our business materially, but you can readily see how it discriminates against every resident of Alaska.

(b) The forfeiture applies if "any part of the transportation" is in a Canadian vessel; so, even if the freight be legally carried south to Seattle, the criminal forfeiture instantly applies if even an American vessel carried it from Seattle north to Skagway, provided a Canadian vessel carried it south to Seattle. This is another pronounced discrimination,

(c) While the section does not apply to the waters of the Yukon River until the Alaskan Railway is finished and the "Shipping Board shall find that proper facilities will be furnished for transportation by persons citizens of the United States for properly handling the traffic," this forfeiture does apply to the water route from Vancouver to Skagway, and Skagway is thus as effectively cut off from Vancouver as are Ketchikan and Juneau.

A preference is extended by the Jones bill to the ports of the States of Washington, Oregon, California, and even to the Philippine Islands, but such preference is withheld from the Alaskan ports. The proposed bill is to give to Alaska the same preference extended to other portions of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States provides: "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another."

Of course, if Alaska were a State, the Jones bill would be unquestionably unconstitutional, but Alaska is a Territory and is probably subject to the complete control of Congress. However, Congress has heretofore specifically extended the Constitution to Alaska and declared that "it shall have full force and effect" there, and the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that when once so extended it can not be recalled—that it remains thereafter irrevocably the supreme law of the Territory.

But, conceding that Congress has the power to enact such a law as section 27 of the Jones bill, still such power ought not to be exercised to the detriment of the Territory of Alaska and its citizens.

We earnestly request you to lend your valuable support to the passage of H. R. 6645. We believe that it is only fair to the inhabitants of Alaska that the discrimination of the Jones bill should be eliminated. If we can be of any assistance in furnishing any further information, we shall be glad to do so. It occurs to us that a public hearing should be had upon the bill and an opportunity given to the people of Alaska and others interested to be present and express their views.

Very respectfully,

Hon. WILLIAM S. GREENE,

NEW ENGLAND FISH Co.
By ORSON M. ARNOLD, President.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

BUREAU OF FISHERIES, Washington, August 11, 1921.

Chairman Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: In response to your letter of August 9 requesting information concerning the cold-storage space available for vessels in the Alaska trade, the following telegrams were exchanged with the bureau's statistical agent in Seattle:

"E. J. BROWN,

"1608 L. C. Smith Bldg., Seattle, Wash.

"Wire cold-storage space by names of vessels in Alaska service, Canadian Pacific, Grand Trunk, Pacific Steamship, Alaska Steamship. If no space available any of these lines, state which. Is frozen fish from Ketchikan to Vancouver handled cold storage or open cargo. Urgent.

"MOORE,

"MOORE."

"Fisheries, Washington, D. C.:

66

Cold-storage space Pacific Steamship Watson fifty, Spokane thirty-five, City Seattle twenty-five, Alaska steamship Alameda twenty-three, Jefferson twentyfive, Northwestern twelve, Victoria fifty. Grand Trunk Pacific no vessels on Alaska run. Canadian Pacific no cold-storage space. All frozen fish carried from Ketchikan to Vancouver open cargo.

"BROWN."

It is believed that Mr. Brown's telegram furnishes the information which you desire.

Very truly, yours,

H. F. MOORE, Acting Commissioner.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sutherland, do you wish to be heard first?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN A. SUTHERLAND, THE DELEGATE FROM

ALASKA.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I am not going to occupy much of your time, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, because I feel you know just what this bill means. The language is identical with that in the present merchant marine act except in this bill the word "including" is substituted for the word "excluding" in the original merchant marine act.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »