[Senate Doc. 452, Sixty-third Congress, second session.]

MEMORIAL OF AMERICAN SEAMEN.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The Seamen of the United States of America, through their committee duly appointed at their national meeting held at Seattle, Wash., May 12, 1913, respectfully petition for the disapproval by the Senate of the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, signed at London, January 20, 1914, and for the enactment by Congress of S. 136, "An act to promote the welfare of American seamen in the merchant marine of the United States; to abolish arrest and imprisonment as a penalty for desertion, and to secure the abrogation of treaty provisions in relation thereto; and to promote safety at sea." In support of said petition your petitioners respectfully represent and state as follows:

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

The great sacrifice of life resulting from the loss of the British steamship Titanic aroused the public mind of the civilized world to a realization of the great and manifestly growing dangers of travel by

sea.

The citizens and subjects of several nations insisted upon such changes in the construction, equipment, and manning of passenger steamers as would have a tendency to prevent such disasters in the future. Apparently responding to this public demand an international conference, representing 13 nations, was called to meet in London, England. The labors of this conference having been completed and the results thereof made public by Great Britain, we respectfully represent that the convention proposed should not be ratified by the United States for reasons amongst which we submit the following:

The convention, and the regulations attached to and made part of same, deals with:

Chapter I. Safety of life at sea.

Chapter II. Ships to which this convention applies.

Chapter III. Safety of navigation.

Chapter IV. Construction.

Chapter V. Radiotelegraphy.

Chapter VI. Life-saving appliances and fire protection.

Chapter VII. Safety certificates.

Chapter VIII. General.

The safety certificate, to be issued under the provisions of the convention, certifies:

1. That the above-mentioned ship has been duly surveyed in accordance with the provisions of the international convention, refered to above.

39185°-S. Doc. 463, 63-2-8

111

II. That the survey showed that the ship complied with the requirements of the said convention as regards (1) the hull, water-tight subdivisions, main and auxiliary boilers, and machinery; (2) the boats and life-saving appliances; (3) radiotelegraph installation.

III. That in all other respects the ship complies with the requirements of the said convention, so far as those requirements apply thereto.

The certificate will show the number of lifeboats and the number of persons they can accommodate, the number of rafts and the number of persons they can accommodate, the number of life buoys, the number of life jackets, and the class and number of wireless operators. It may also show, upon the owner's request, that the vessel in her construction, from the point of view of safety, is above the standard adopted by the convention. The standard applies to "new ships. which, for purposes of construction, means vessels whose keels are laid after July 1, 1915. All other vessels are "existing ships," and they may continue without alteration. This need not be shown on the certificate.

Article 57 of the convention, dealing with safety certificates, reads as follows:

A certificate, called a "safety certificate," shall be issued, after inspection and survey, to every ship which complies in an efficient manner with the requirements of the convention.

The inspection and survey of ships, so far as regards the enforcement of the provisions of this convention and the annexed regulations, shall be carried out by officers of the State to which the ship belongs; provided always, that the Government of each State may intrust the inspection and survey of ships of its own country either to surveyors nominated by it for this purpose or to organizations recognized by it. In every case the Government concerned fully guarantees the completeness and efficiency of the inspection and survey.

The safety certificate shall be issued either by the officer of the State to which the ships belong, or by any other person duly authorized by that State. In either case the State to which the ship belongs assumes the full responsibility for the certificate. Article 60 reads as follows:

The safety certificate issued under the authority of a contracting State shall be accepted by the Governments of the other contracting States for all purposes covered by this convention. It shall be regarded by the Governments of the other contracting States as having the same force as the certificates issued by them to their own ships. Article 61 reads as follows:

Every ship holding a safety certificate issued by the officers of the contracting State to which it belongs, or by persons duly authorized by that State, is subject in the ports of the other contracting States to control by officers duly authorized by their Governments in so far as this control is directed toward verifying that there is on board a valid safety certificate, and, if necessary, that the conditions of the vessel's seaworthiness correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate; that is to say, so that the ship can proceed to sea without danger to the passengers and the

crew.

It appears to your petitioners that by the adoption of these articles the United States will surrender its power to regulate foreign vessels coming to its ports. We believe that as a result of such action foreign ships will continue to have the advantages over American ships which, in the past, have been one of the main factors in destroying the American mercantile marine in the foreign trade. Article 68 of the convention reads as follows:

The treaties, conventions, and arrangements concluded prior to this convention shall continue to have full and complete effect as regards (1) ships excepted from the convention; (2) ships to which it applies, in respect of subjects for which the convention has not expressly provided.

It is understood that, the subject of this convention being safety of lire at sea, questions relating to the well-being and health of passengers, and in particular of immigrants, as well as other matters relative to their transport, continues subject to the legislation of the different States.

Your petitioners respectfully raise the question whether the expression the different States" does not mean the different States to which the ships belong and whether the passenger act will not, by virtue of this article, cease to apply to foreign vessels bringing passengers to ports of the United States. Further, whether existing treaties, conventions, and arrangements relating to crews of vessels are not, by the language used, made part of this convention and, therefore, must continue in force without abrogation or amendment until after July 1, 1921, under article 69, which reads as follows:

This convention shall come into force on the 1st of July, 1915, and shall remain in force without any prescribed limit of time. Nevertheless, each high contracting party may denounce the convention at any time after an interval of five years from the date on which the convention comes into force in that State.

This denunciation shall be notified through the diplomatic channel to the Government of Great Britain and by the latter to the Governments of the other contracting parties. It shall take effect 12 months after the day on which the notification is received by the Government of Great Britain.

A denunciation shall only affect the State which makes it, the convention remaining fully and completely operative as regards all the other States which have ratified it, or which have acceded thereto or which thereafter acceded thereto.

Your petitioners respectfully suggest that the Conference on Safety of Life at Sea has built and submitted to each of the high contracting parties a barrier against any legislation dealing with the subject of safety of life at sea inconsistent with the provisions of the convention; that this barrier, if ratified, will remain intact until after July 1, 1921; and that no improvements can be adopted by any State to be made applicable to other than its own vessels. Any higher and more expensive standards enacted and made applicable to domestic ships would put such vessels at a disadvantage in competition with vessels of other nations, and therefore, in event of the convention being adopted, no nation would be likely to take such action.

Among the standards of safety set by this convention and protected by this barrier are several which reduce existing standards. Thus, the present English law provides lifeboats for all persons on board, while Article XLII of the regulations annexed to the convention provides lifeboats for only 75 per cent of all persons on board, the remainder may be provided for with rafts.

Our present law dealing with radiotelegraphy provides that steamers plying between ports or places more than 200 miles apart and having on board 50 or more persons shall have wireless installation, continuous service with two certified operators. Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the convention reduces this requirement to such an extent that only fast vessels in the intercontinental trade are compelled to have wireless operators keeping continuous watch.

One of the standards set by the courts of the United States (in re Pacific Mail Steamship Co.) is that a crew is inefficient for service, either on the vessel or in lifeboats, if the men can not understand the orders of the officers. Article XLVII of the regulation annexed to the convention provides that the certificated lifeboat men shall be capable of understanding and answering the orders relative to lifeboat service." This language permits the use of a crew that requires interpreters.

The same article prescribes a minimum number of lifeboat men for each lifeboat according to its carrying capacity. These lifeboat men, whose number is entirely too small to manage the boat except by help of others, may be drawn from the saloon, the deck, or the engine department. This is at variance with the action of the House of Representatives in the Sixty-second Congress, and the action of the Senate in the present Congress, in both cases of which it was provided that each lifeboat must have at least two men of the rating of able seamen or higher as a part of its crew.

Articles XXXII and XXXIII of the regulations annexed to the convention provide definite specifications for the building of certain types of lifeboats and pontoon rafts, but Article XLVI of the regulations provides that lifeboats and rafts below that accepted standard may be continued on "existing ships" until January 1, 1920. Article 42 of the convention provides that:

Each boat must be of sufficient strength to enable it to be safely lowered into the water when loaded with its full complement of persons and equipment.

Article 49 of the convention provides that:

The davits shall be of such strength that the boats can be lowered with their full complement of persons and equipment, the ship being assumed to have a list of 15°. The davits must be fitted with a gear of sufficient power to insure that the boat can be turned out against the maximum list under which the lowering of the boats is possible on the vessel in question.

Subsection (d) of Article XLVI of the regulation annexed to the convention provides that:

The provisions of articles 42 and 49 of the convention, respecting the launching of boats, shall not be applicable to existing ships.

Your petitioners respectfully represent that the standards adopted by the conference are not sufficiently high to insure reasonable safety at sea, even on "new ships," and that on "existing ships, by exceptions provided for, some of the most unsafe of existing practices are legalized.

S. 136.

In support of S. 136 we respectfully submit the following analysis of the necessity for its enactment:

Senate 136 is substantially a copy of H. R. 23673, which passed the House in the last Congress, except that it has a new clause requiring sufficient lifeboats for passenger vessels.

In the report of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, May 2, 1912 (after exhaustive hearings, in which all objections now urged by shipowners were given consideration), it is described as follows:

First. It will give freedom to the sailors. Second. It will promote safety at sea. Third. It will equalize the operating expenses of foreign and domestic vessels engaged in our oversea trade and tend to build up our merchant marine.

EQUALIZING THE COST OF OPERATION.

The shipowners have claimed that competition with foreign vessels was impossible because of the difference in cost of building and operating. They emphasize the difference in cost of operation. The

last Congress equalized the building cost by admitting foreign-built vessels to American register for purposes of foreign trade.

All difference in operating cost is now in wages paid. The wage cost of operation depends upon the port in which the crew is hired, not upon the flag of the vessel. It is the same to vessels of all nations hiring their crews in the same port and engaged in the same or similar trade.

If foreign ships were deprived of certain special privileges, under which they now have the aid of our Government in forcibly retaining or recapturing the men secured in ports with a lower wage rate, such foreign ships would find it necessary to adopt the American standard of wages when trading to our ports. This in order to keep their crews or to obtain new crews. Let the United States cease to be a slave catcher for foreign ships. The certain effect will be to equalize the wage cost of operation.

"American" shipowners having money invested in foreign ships, with their partners the European shipowners, understand this to be the inevitable result of Senate 136. It will give real American ships proper opportunities in the foreign trade. That is why they oppose it.

The "special privileges" referred to above are the means by which, while in our ports, foreign ships are enabled to forcibly hold the crews secured at the lower wage rates of foreign ports. Under treaties and statutes our Government uses its police powers, at the request of foreign shipowners, to capture and return seamen who attempt to quit the service of their ships. Thus the wage rate of foreign ships is forcibly kept lower than that prevailing at American ports.

This marks the one advantage which foreign ships now hold over American ships in the foreign trade, and which prevents the proper growth of our merchant marine. Other conditions have been equalized.

The building cost was equalized by a clause in the Panama Canal act permitting American register to foreign-built ships for purposes of the foreign trade.

The cost of supplies is equal to all. An American ship trading between New York and Antwerp, for instance, purchases her supplies in Antwerp if the cost there is lower than in New York.

The remaining item, and the most important, is that of labor cost on the vessel itself, i. e., the wages of the crew. If conditions can be brought about whereby the wage cost of operation will be equalized, the development of our merchant marine and our sea power will be unhampered.

This is within the power of our Government. The present situation is entirely artificial. The remedy is to set free the economic laws governing wages, economic laws which, in their application to seamen, are now obstructed by treaties and statute law.

There has been a very common misapprehension that wages of seamen depend upon the flag under which they work. Their wages depend upon the port in which they are hired and sign shipping articles, regardless of the nationality of the vessel, and the wages in that port depends upon the standards of living in the country where the port is located. In other words, the economic law governing