Thus the first article of our treaty with the Netherlands, negotiated by Mr. Webster in 1853, provides:

Goods and merchandise whatever their origin may be, imported into or exported from the ports of the United States from and to any other country, in vessels of the Netherlands, shall pay no higher or other duties than shall be levied on the like goods and merchandise imported or exported in national vessels. Reciprocally, goods and merchandise, whatever their origin may be, imported into or exported from the ports of the Netherlands from and to any other country, in vessels of the United States, shall pay no higher or other duties than shall be levied on the like goods and merchandise imported or exported in national vessels.

The bounties, drawbacks, and other privileges of this nature which may be granted in the states of either of the contracting parties, on goods exported or imported in national vessels, shall also and in like manner be granted on goods imported or exported in vessels of the other country.

A similar provision may be found in nearly all the treaties before referred to on the pages already given or on the preceding or succeeding pages of our Treaties and Conventions.

The belief that discrimination is harmful to our national interests thus has had the sanction of all parties at all times in our national history, and the policy of all enlightened maritime nations is the same as our own. Some nations pay construction or navigation bounties or large compensation for carrying the mails to national vessels, but no nation of maritime rank undertakes to impose discriminating duties on tonnage or merchandise. The theory of discrimination, as was stated in the annual report of the Bureau last year, would undoubtedly work admirably if in practice it were possible in some fashion to bind foreign nations to refrain from prompt and effective retaliation against American vessels in their ports; but the assumption that they will not strike back rests on a belief in a spirit of humility not yet general in commercial affairs among either nations or individuals.

The laws now provide-whether wisely or not is not here in question that only American vessels shall engage in the coasting trade between ports of the United States, and these laws are easily enforced, because these ports are all under our own control. The power of any State to discriminate against the shipping of another State is denied by the Constitution. The exercise of that power under the Confederation proved harmful to the mercantile interests of the States which attempted it, and it was forbidden by the fundamental law when the Government was established. Long ago the leading maritime nations found, by an experience not different from our own under the Confederation, that discriminating taxes on shipping injure the shipping of all parties who engage in such commercial wars of retaliation, and by common consent the project no longer has a place in any intelligent maritime policy. An attempt to deny entry to the ports of the United States to foreign vessels would naturally result in the refusal of foreign nations to allow American vessels to enter their ports. What is true of absolute prohibition is equally true of any plan of modified discrim ination. Whatever its degree, it would inevitably result in reprisals which would deprive American shipping of any hoped-for advantages at home by putting it to corresponding disadvantages abroad.

The belief entertained in some quarters that the early history of the United States shows that discriminating taxes are a successful means of upbuilding an American merchant marine finds no warrant in the facts or discussions of the period. On the contrary, the United States adopted discriminating duties at the beginning of government expressly as a matter of reprisal for discriminations made against American vessels in foreign ports, and the policy was given up as soon as it had been effective in putting an end to those discriminations. The words

of Representative Benjamin Goodhue, of Massachusetts, father of the navigation laws, less than three weeks after the First Congress began business, are conclusive on this point (Annals of Congress, vol. 1, p. 184, April 21, 1789):

Mr. GOODHUE. There would be no occasion to lay additional duties on ships owned by foreigners if our own vessels were not subjected to charges in foreign ports over and above what the natives pay. It is the operation of this unequal burthen that renders it necessary for us to discriminate.

SUBSIDIES AND MAIL COMPENSATION.

In the report of the Bureau last year thirty pages were devoted to the subject of cash payments from Government treasuries to the merchant marine of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Norway and Sweden, France, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and the Dominion of Canada, and to their respective laws concerning subsidies and bounties to navigation and shipbuilding, ocean-mail payments, reserve cruisers, and naval reserves. It was shown that barely 3 per cent of British shipping and less than 4 per cent of German shipping receive Government aid, while the great majority of French and Italian navigation is subsidized. As there have been no material changes in the fiscal relations of these Governments to their shipping during the year, it has not appeared advisable to traverse the ground again, nor is it deemed necessary to consider here the propriety or legality of the bounty system. A well-defined line separates those who hold opposing beliefs upon that subject in this country.

While academic discussion is superfluous, some pages in Appendix F have been devoted to the translation in full of the report of the commission on which the present bounty law of France was framed. Among the members of the commission was M. Félix Faure, now President of France and one of its leading shipowners, and the report quoted was drafted by M. Jules Siegfried, subsequently minister of commerce. The French system provides bounties for both construction and navigation, and has been in operation for fourteen years. Expenditures under it have been greater than any other nation has made for a like purpose. The commission was appointed, when the law had been in operation nine years, to report upon its effects and recommend desirable amendments. The report is the ablest and most complete official document, sustaining from observation the actual workings of a complete subsidy law, known to the Bureau.

It will be noted that the argument for bounties in France rests on three grounds: First, that tariff taxes are imposed on shipbuilding materials, putting French builders at a disadvantage; second, that under the French system of compulsory service of all citizens in the army or navy, the merchant marine serves as a training school and recruiting depot for the navy; third, that the first cost of shipbuilding in France is greater than elsewhere. The report recognizes that labor in French shipyards is paid lower wages than elsewhere, and that the wages of French sailors are lower than the British. Under the French system a half bounty for navigation is also offered to foreignbuilt vessels under the French flag as a means of securing employment for French sailors and of obtaining a reserve force (as three-fourths of the crew of a French merchant vessel must be French) available to man French war vessels. The French mail steamships of the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique and the Messageries Maritimes do not receive the navigation bounties, but are paid compensation for carrying the mails, amounting in the aggregate to between $3,000,000 and

$4,000,000 annually. The Italian navigation bounty law, it may be added, is framed closely on the lines of the French law. It contains as an additional feature a bounty for every ton of coal imported into Italy by an Italian vessel, the object being to secure cheap coal as a necessity to modern navigation.

The postal subsidy act, passed by Congress in 1891, provides for contracts with American steamships for carrying the ocean mails of the United States at the following rates: Twenty-knot steamships of over 8,000 tons, $4 a mile; 16-knot steamships of over 5,000 tons, $2 a mile; 14-knot steamships of over 2,500 tons, $1 a mile; 12-knot steamships of over 1,500 tons, 67 cents a mile. The chief Government contracts for carrying the transatlantic mails are those of the United States with the International Navigation Company, calling for a weekly trip from New York to Southampton, or annually about 180,000 nautical miles, for which the compensation will be, approximately, $750,000; of Great Britain with the Cunard and White Star lines, calling for two trips a week from Queenstown to New York, or annually 290,000 nautical miles, for which the compensation in 1894-95 was $525,000; and of France with the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, calling for a weekly trip from Havre to New York, or annually 325,000 miles, for which the fixed compensation is $1,075,000. The Bureau, through the usual channels, is informed by the German Government:

As regards the compensation paid by the German Empire to the various mail steamer lines of the North German Lloyd and the Hamburg-American Packet Company for the carriage of the mails, it is to be remarked that the amount of this compensation is not established at a fixed sum, but is regulated by the existing postal rules and is either according to the weight or the number of letters or packages.

The postal subsidy act of 1891 requires that vessels receiving mail compensation shall be at the disposal of the Government in the event of war, and under its present operations the St. Louis, St. Paul, New York, and Paris may at any time be employed by the United States as cruisers or transports. Unlike the British law, our act provides no subvention for this service. The country this year, accordingly, has on the Atlantic, free from cost of maintenance, a fleet of four merchant steamships, aggregating 44,856 gross tons, available for the national defense. The British lines named, besides postal subsidy, receive an annual subvention from the Admiralty of about $130,000 (Campania, £7,500; Lucania, £4,375; Teutonic, £7,263; Majestic, £7,396), in return for which they agree to place their vessels at the disposal of the Government in the event of war. The four vessels named aggregate 45,849 gross tons.

The act of 1891 provides that an increasing percentage of the crews on the American vessels named shall be American citizens. The British law has no similar provision, but the officers and many of the crews of the British vessels named belong to the Royal Naval Reserve and receive annual retainers (able seaman £6) from the Government, which expends in all $1,000,000 upon its naval reserve forces. The requirement that an increasing percentage of the crews of American transatlantic mail steamships shall be American citizens involves an annual expense for increased wages of about $60,000 a year at the present time, at the end of five years amounting annually to about $120,000, which must be paid by the contracting corporation. The officers and crews of the British mail steamers named, on the other hand, receive from the naval reserve funds about $25,000 annually. The payments of the United States and Great Britain for ocean mail service during the last fiscal year may be found in Appendix N.

REPORTS OF SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS.

The reports of United States shipping commissioners show that during the year there were 57,501 shipments of seamen, 25,234 reshipments, and 35,758 discharges, making a total of 118,493 times when services were rendered to masters and seamen by the commissioners. For the previous year 34,904 discharges and 71,400 shipments and reshipments combined, in all 106,304 times when services were rendered, were reported. The business of the offices shows an apparent increase of 12,000 calls upon the commissioners for services. The expenses for the year were $61,511.70 compared with $59,934.72 for the previous year, an increase of less than $1,600, and far below the increase in the extent of services rendered. The average cost of services per man this year was 52 cents, as compared with 56 for the previous year.

The number of men discharged and paid off before commissioners at the end of deep-sea voyages was 30,899, compared with 28,504 for the previous year, the New York office showing an increase of nearly 3,000. These figures, of course, as do all the figures of shipment and discharge, cover the repeated voyages of many seamen who are shipped and discharged several times during the year. The number of discharges from coasting voyages was 4,859 compared with 6,400 for the previous year. The increase in discharges from foreign trade is due chiefly to the increase in the number of crews shipped by the American Line out of New York. The number of crews and parts of crews shipped this year in the foreign trade was 1,870, compared with 1,930 last year, but the number of men was greater than during the previous year owing to the increase in the crews shipped in this country on our transatlantic steamship line. The number of crews and parts of crews shipped for the coasting trade was 8,400, compared with 8,867. Shipment before a commissioner is compulsory in the foreign trade, and voluntary in the coasting trade.

The office of commissioner was abolished at Charleston, S. C., and Astoria, Oreg., as the business at those ports did not seem to warrant its continuance, and the collectors of customs, who act at ports where there are no commissioners, should be fully able to discharge any necessary duties of shipping commissioners. A new office was established at Brunswick, Ga. The offices showing considerable increases in business over the previous year were New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Providence, while the only office showing a considerable decrease was San Francisco.

The reports show that the American element among our merchant seamen steadily declines. The returns of nativity cover 76,990 shipments, compared with 71,237 for the previous year. The shipment of Americans reported has fallen from 22,143 in 1893-94 to 21,881 for the last year, while the shipments of Scandinavians has increased from 21,996 to 24,182. Even more striking is the fact that the Scandinavians shipping at the four ports of Maine where offices are established exceeded the Americans, there being 3,076 shipments of the former compared with 2,962 of the latter, while out of Boston the shipments of Americans numbered only 469 of a total of 9,414, of which 5,310 were of Scandinavians. These facts are a more eloquent plea to Con gress than rhetoric can offer for a thorough effort to bring our shipping laws at least abreast of those of our rivals. Doubtless even under improved legislation and administration our industrial conditions will continue to draw Americans away from the sea, but that is the more reason why the repellent force of outgrown laws should be removed.

In the last annual report it was stated that the Bureau would submit to your judgment in time for consideration by the next Congress a plan for the improvement of our methods of shipping seamen. The plan proposes: First, full governmental control of and responsibility for the shipping commissioners' offices, carrying with it the intention that these offices shall be, as designed, employment agencies for seamen; second, changes in the laws relative to allotment of wages, which now practically reduce the actual pay of the seaman to about half of his nominal wages and keep him perpetually in debt; third, the abolition of imprisonment of the seaman in the common jails in the United States for breach of civil contract. These three propositions have been reduced to forms in which they may be enacted into law, if they meet the approval of Congress and the President of the United States, and the argument for them is set forth in some detail in the following pages.

SHIPMENT OF SEAMEN.

The laws in regard to the shipment of seamen and the methods of enforcing them are in need of improvement, for they fail at essential points to accomplish the results for which they were devised. The change in the law need not be considerable, but it appears to be indispensable to improvement in the methods of enforcing the law, and it is urged that Congress be asked to give the subject careful consideration. The office of shipping commissioner was created, according to section 4508, Revised Statutes, "to afford facilities for engaging seamen by keeping a register of their names and characters" and "to superintend their engagement and discharge in the manner provided by law." In theory the office of the shipping commissioner is an employment agency, the place where the master needing a crew and the seaman seeking a berth meet and make their contracts under the supervision of an officer of the Government, appointed for the protection of the seaman. The commissioner is the officer expected to find a crew for the master seeking one or to find a berth for the seaman who wishes to get a ship. On this theory the Government pays the shipping commissioner $2 for each seaman shipped on a foreign voyage, $1 for each seaman shipped on a coasting voyage, and 50 and 25 cents, respectively, for discharges in those trades. The theory and the practice are almost identical in Great Britain, whence our system was derived. In the United States the theory and practice in most instances bear no recognizable likeness to each other. The office of the shipping commissioner very often is the place of last resort of master and seaman when nothing remains of shipment but the official approval of a contract already drawn.

The practice of the master of a vessel requiring a crew in the United States appears to be to follow one of two courses. He visits the sailors' boarding houses, saloons, or other resorts, and there either picks out his men, the proprietor undertaking to render them before the commissioner to sign the shipping articles and then to render them on board ship, or he bargains with a private agent or shipping master to procure for him a crew. Either of these courses obviously would be unnecessary if the offices of the shipping commissioners were, as they are designed to be, places to facilitate the engagement of seamen. The interposition of the middleman is a direct tax upon our merchant marine from which our chief maritime rival, Great Britain, has almost wholly rid herself of late years. Private parties, proprietors of boarding houses and saloons, do not supply sailors to ships without being well paid by the master, the owner, or the seaman himself for a service which the Government undertakes to perform without payment from any of the three. No investigation is needed to establish this point.