The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

House Committee on Merchant Ma Hearings for a Month — Strong Opposition Developing OPE is expressed by democratic members of the house commit- tee on merchant marine and fisheries that the committee will be able to make a favorable report on the ad- ministration ship purchase bill the lat-_ ter part of March. Hearings on the measure consumed one month, having been begun on Feb. 10 and concluded on March 10. While supporters of the measure profess to think it can be passed in the house, it is apparent it will be strongly opposed and may _ be defeated. It appears that the deter- mining factor is the position that will be taken by certain democrats whose attitude on the measure has not been clearly defined. Among the substantial forces against the administration is its own house leader, Claude Kitchen. To what extreme he may press his oppo- sition is a question, but it is believed he will not make a concerted effort to defeat it but may content himself with a set speech expressing opposition to the measure. The so-called Tammany element in congress may, through turn- ing solidly against the measure, catse its defeat, assuming the republicans will be united in their opposition to it. A defection of 13 votes would defeat the measure, if the forces line up as indi- cated, and the complete strength of the house votes. It is believed the admin- istration can muster a good majority in the senate if the bill reaches that body. Chairman Alexander of the commit- tee, during the hearings took a position which has been interpreted as showing rather liberal views in some _ respects, and appeared ready to give substantial weight to the testimony of numerous witnesses who testified in opposition to the measure, and changes may be made in it as a result. There is no hope, however, that it will be deprived of its most objectionable features, as seen by its opponent. idea of state socialism because the gov- ernment may operate, lease or charter the vessels it is proposed to obtain with the $50,000,000 provided in the bill; government competition with private shippers; and too strict regulation of rates by the proposed shipping board. It was also pointed out that not only would the $50,000,000 be utterly insufficient to build up anything like an ample mer- chant marine, but that owing to the congested condition of ship yards and tremendous demand for vessels these could not be obtained earlier than 1918, t These include the’ Of all the testimony adduced in oppo- sition to the bill, perhaps the most im- portant was that of William H. Doug- las, of New York, chairman Of the merchant marine committee of the cham- ber of commerce of the United States. Mr. Douglas was the first witness to appear before the committee, and stress laid on his testimony was due to the fact that he acted as the spokesman for the national chamber of commerce, whose referendum on the question of merchant marine recorded an overwhelm- ing sentiment against the government going into the shipping business. At the same time the referendum showed the national chamber to strongly favor recommendations made by its merchant marine committee, which suggested sub- sidies to private shippers as the only practicable means of building up an adequate American merchant marine. Mr. Douglas brought these facts out plainly before the committee. Douglas Speaks in Opposition Mr. Douglas said that in his opinion congress should make it plain, if it en- acts the shipping bill, that no discrimi- nation should be made against Amer- icans by compelling them to procure licenses and not requiring the same of foreign lines. Judge J. W. Alexander, chairman of the committee, said that the bill does provide that foreign vessels must obtain licenses the same as Amer- ican vessels, but said if there is any doubt as to the meaning of the bill in this direction the committee would be perfectly willing to amend it accordingly. Mr. Douglas said that he did not think the $50,000,000 provided in the bill would secure more than 60 vessels of the right type. He said that 10 years ago be- tween $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 given as government aid would have established at least eight steamship lines to foreign countries, and with $50,000,000 spent in that way in that time it would have pro- vided at least 200 or 300 steamers. Mr. Douglas also thought the bill should carry a provision limiting government operation of the vessels to a reasonable number of years after the war, and “take the string out of your bill, because what is_the use of having government oper- ation with $50,000,000?” “It is a farce on the face of it; © add- ed Mr. Douglas, “because what are you going to do when you get your 60 steamers with your $50,000,000? Are you going to go to congress next year 124 rine and Fisheries Holds and say, ‘We made a_ mistake; United States does not want 100 y sels; it wants 1,000 vessels,’ and ask ¢ gress for $100,000,000? You will no get it.” Mr. Douglas objected to so of the provisions of the present na gation laws, and mentioned the along with other matters, such as wage paid to American seamen, as be principal factors in making the cost operation of vessels under the Amer ican flag higher than that of vessel: under a foreign flag. : the navigation laws was discussed b: Eugene Tyler Chamberlain, commis sioner of navigation, department of com merce. In substance, Mr. Chamberlai said that the American navigation laws are not antiquated as is repeatedly charged, but that they are constantly be ing revised in every practical way to aid American shipping. Secretary of Com- merce William C. Redfield said that he had talked with and written to promi- nent American steamship interests in an effort to get them to suggest desirable changes in the navigation laws, but that thus far he has been unable to get a definite suggestion as to what is wanted. Mr. Redfield said the reason why the secretary of the navy and the secretary of commerce were put upon the pro- posed shipping board provided in the bill is because they represent the two ereat maritime departments of the gov- ernment. Mr. Redfield was not dis- posed to think the matter of cost of building vessels in the American ship- yards and operating them under the American flag was any obstacle. For instance, he said that ship plates are ab- solutely cheaper in the United States in ordinary times and_ structural steel of that character is made more cheaply in this country than any other. Replying to statements that the $50,- 000,000 would not be sufficient to go 4 great way, Mr. Redfield said this money may be used in large part over and over again, and added: “We should be very glad to see the bill, if it is not perfectly clear in that respect, made so in this way: That if a ship is sold the funds received from the sale of that ship may be utilized for the-further pursuance of the objects of the bill.” Mr. Redfield introduced in evidence letters received from E. Platt Stratton, supervisor of the American Bureau of Shipping, New York, sug- (Concluded on page 130)