influence, or coerce the other in its choice of representatives. Representatives of employees need not be persons in the employ of the water carrier, and no water carrier shall, by interference, influence, or coercion seek in any manner to prevent the designation by its employees as their representatives of those who or which are not employees of the water carrier. The majority of the employees in the craft or class shall have the right to designate their representatives.

Fourth. Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class. No water carrier, its officers or agents, shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the labor organization of their choice, and it shall be unlawful for any water carrier to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees, or to use the funds of the water carrier in maintaining or assisting or contributing to any labor organization, labor representative, or other agency of collective bargaining, or in performing any work therefor, or to influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization, or to deduct from the wages of employees any dues, fees, assessments, or other contributions payable to labor organizations, or to collect or to assist in the collection of any such dues, fees, assessments, or other contributions. Fifth. No water carrier, its officers, or agents, shall require any person seeking employment to sign any contract or agreement promising to join or not to join a labor organization; and if such contract has been enforced prior to the effective date of this amendment, then such water carrier shall notify the employees by appropriate order that such contract has been discarded and is no longer binding on them in any way.

Sixth. In case of a dispute between a water carrier or carriers and its or their employees, arising out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, it shall be the duty of the designated representative or representatives of such water carrier or carriers and of such employees, within 10 days after the receipt of notice of a desire on the part of either party to confer in respect to such dispute, to specify a time and place at which such conference shall be held: Provided, (1) That the place so specified shall be situated upon the line of the water carrier involved or as otherwise mutually agreed upon; and (2) that the time so specified shall allow the designated conferees reasonable opportunity to reach such place of conference, but shall not exceed 20 days from the receipt of such notice.

Seventh. Every water carrier shall notify its employees by printed notices conspicuously posted at places easily accessible to its employees, notifying its employees that all disputes between the water carrier and its employees will be handled in accordance with the requirements of this amendment, and in such notices there shall be printed verbatim, in large type, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of this section. The provisions of said paragraphs are hereby made a part of the contract of employment between the water carrier and each employee, and shall be held binding upon the parties regardless of any other express or implied agreement between them.

Eighth. The willful failure or refusal of any carrier, its officers or agents, to comply with the terms of the first, third, fourth, fifth, or seventh paragraph of this section shall be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof the carrier, officer, or agent offending shall be subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $20,000 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both fine and imprisonment, for each offense, and each day during which such carrier, officer, or agent shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with the terms of the said paragraphs of this section shall constitute a separate offense. It shall be the duty of any district attorney of the United States to whom any duly designated representative of a carrier's employees may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this section, and for the punishment of all violations thereof, and the costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this amendment shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything in this amendment be construed to make the quitting of his labor by an individual employee an illegal act; nor shall any court issue any process to compel the performance by an individual employee of such labor or service without his consent.

141408-35-PT 1-24

BRIEF OF A. P. FANT, DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL DIVISION, MEMPHIS CHAMBER of COMMERCE, MEMPHIS, TENN.

The Memphis Chamber of Commerce believes that the maintenance and development of inland water transportation is a vital national economic necessity and constitutes a necessary factor in determining a national system of coordinated transportation.

Further, it is felt that the exceedingly large sums expended by the Federal Government and others in the development of our inland waterways, in order to provide cheap or economic transportation and to direct the distribution of products into new channels and new fields, is just beginning to approach a fruition justifying the vast expenditures of both public and private funds.

The Coordinator's study indicates that since 1920 the investment represented in increased transportation facilities approximates 25 billions of dollars and that approximately 20 billion dollars, or four-fifths of the total has been invested in transportation other than rail facilities. The port of Memphis alone possesses a total of 20 river and rail terminals, representing investments in individual instances up to a million dollars, and including as well two municipally owned terminals provided at a cost approximating 11⁄2 million dollars. The complete protection of both these large public and private investments, national and local, is a national obligation conducive to a highly desired more stable public confidence. Due to the fact that inland waterway transportation has not yet developed to the point where the proposed regulation as set forth is required or essential, such a medium of transport should not be hampered or destroyed, but should be encouraged and extended for the benefit of the shipping public and the industrial development of certain sections which up to now have not been developed industrially and commercially to an appreciable degree because of a landlocked handicap existing for many years prior to 1922, an uneconomic condition materially aggravated by the opening of the Panama Canal.

It is strongly emphasized that no advantage would be enjoyed by the shipping public with the use of water transportation unless an economic and lower cost transportation is thereby provided. Therefore, in the absence of abuse justifying the proposed regulation, and in the absence of a demand for such regulation on the part of the shipping public, it is concluded that the cost of water transportation should be based upon the actual cost of this service.

It is believed that the interests of the producing, shipping, receiving, and consuming public of the Nation might best be served by allowing water transport over natural arteries of commerce on a basis of cost, plus a fair profit, and not a basis of arbitrary fixation of rates predicated upon other and more expensive forms of transportation.

It is, therefore, inconceivable that the conceded form of most economic transportation should not be made continuously and fully available to the public or that such transportation should be restricted or eliminated in favor of more expensive methods of transportation. In this day of rapidly mounting living costs, this policy would constitute a burden upon the harassed public to a degree approximating an economic calamity.

BRIEF OF HOWARD M. LONG, SOLICITOR, VESSEL OWNERS' AND CAPTAINS' ASSOCIATION OF PHILADLEPHIA, PA.

The Vessel Owners and Captains' Association of Philadelphia is an association composed of persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the many phases of business connected with maritime affairs. For the last 67 years this association has been actively functioning and has and does now represent the maritime interests of the Port of Philadelphia. Included in its membership are owners of all classes of merchant vessels, viz, steamers, barges, tugboats, lighters, tank steamers, tank barges, shippers of merchandise, both for themselves and for others, oil refineries, shipyards, and ship railways, ship chandlers, State pilots, stevedores, and wharfingers. Among its members are persons, firms, and corporations engaged in foreign, interstate, and intrastate marine transportation; also including both private and common carriers. It is also to be noted that the Port of Philadelphia is shown by commercial statistics to be the second largest port so far as volume of business is concerned, on the Atlantic coast of the United States. For many years and up to the present time the carriers of goods and merchandise by water have with the greatest of difficulty been able to compete with the railroads. Congress has been fully aware of the great necessity in the public

interest of aiding and preserving our water-borne commerce, both foreign and domestic, as well as ocean, coastwise, and inland. It has authorized the expenditure of vast sums of money to assist our merchant marine by improving and deepening the harbors, our rivers, and our inland waterways solely for the purpose of promoting commerce by reducing the cost of transportation and improving the service rendered to the commercial interests of our whole country.

Probably no line of business has been so seriously affected by the depression conditions which have existed during the past 6 years. During this period waterborne commerce has, and it is now, suffering under the terrible burden of depressed business conditions. And yet, it is now proposed under the aforesaid existing circumstances to impose upon the maritime commerce of the United States this so-called "Water Carrier Act of 1935" commonly known as "the Eastman bill." In other words it is being attempted by this bill to impose a system of rigid governmental regulation upon water carriers and commerce by water which will tremendously increase transportation costs, decrease earning power, and impair operating efficiency and service by water carriers.

Although it is the declared purpose of the bill to stabilize and coordinate transportation, to establish reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, and to improve service, whereas in reality it will increase transportation charges, restrict service, and create burdensome discrimination to the injury of carriers, shippers, and localities. The effect of this legislation would not only be destructive of waterborne commerce, but would undoubtedly be seriously detrimental to the railroads. This bill would place all transportation under control of the Interstate Commerce Commission and would give that Commission practically unlimited power to control the operation, services, and charges of all forms of transportation. It would limit and well-nigh destroy competition among carriers. If this bill became a law the railroads would undoubtedly use their best efforts to restrict the business of competing water carriers.

It is also to be noted that this bill by its provisions endeavors to use the conditions and situations under which the railroads are now operating as a standard for the operation, services, and charges of water carriers.

If enacted, railroad rates and services would be used as a standard for the fixation of the services to be rendered and the rates to be charged by water carriers.

It cannot be disputed, that at this time Interstate Commerce Commission being highly sympathetic with the requirements of the railroads for additional revenues, is, to use the vernacular, "railroad minded." Under such circumstances that Commission will, in its efforts to help the railroads, successfully attempt to curb the competition of water transportation by fixing the water-transportation rates to the higher levels of the railroad rates.

Therefore, regulation by the Commission of the rates and services of water carriers will necessarily result in greatly increasing the charges of water-borne commerce. And, on the other hand, such railroad rates that have been reduced in competition with water carriers would be increased.

The attempt to use the railroad rates as a standard for the water carrier rates and to assume that the services rendered by the railroad and the water carrier are at all similar, is not based upon actual existing facts and circumstances.

All the railroads have terminals, most of their freight is known as "package freight" or "small lots," while most of the water carriers have no terminal, and transport cargo lots, in many cases whole shiploads of cargo, and the services rendered by the two sets of carriers are vastly different.

Again, in most instances our railroads are overcapitalized, their equipment is old and expensive to maintain, and their rate structure is artificial and outworn. Again, if this bill becomes law, the operation and services of water carriers would not only be rigidly regulated and restricted, but the cost of such operation would be greatly increased.

Under this bill the Commission would be given power to specify the number and kind of vessels, the wharf and dock facilities, the schedule of sailings, routes, ports, and the kind and quantity of freight to be carrier by water carriers.

Again, a complicated system of rate tariffs, accounts reports, and supervision of all the activities of water carriers would be created and enforced by severe penalties for violations. No changes in any of the aforesaid matters could be made except after long and expensive investigations, hearings, and litigation, requiring both the Commission and the water carrier to employ many accountants, technicians, and attorneys. The inevitable result of such legislation would be that the water carrier would be hampered and burdened by the same governmental interference with their business that has just about financially wrecked the railroads.

But this bill interjects and creates a new competitor for both the railroads and the water carrier, viz, the private carrier. The bill creates (a) the "interstate common carrier by water", which is defined therein as any water carrier which holds itself out to transport passengers or property, or any class or classes thereof, in interstate commerce for compensation or hire. This carrier is now known in our law as the common carrier"; (b) the "interstate contract carrier by water", which is defined as any water carrier which transports passengers or the property of others in interstate commerce, for compensation or hire, under a charter, contract, agreement, or arrangement and which is not an interstate common carrier by water; such carrier is now known in our law as a "private carrier"; (c) the "interstate private carrier by water", which is defined as a water carrier which is not in either of the two preceding classes, except as it may be authorized under the provisions of section 212 of the bill, and which transports in interstate commerce solely its own property and/or the property of any person by whom or which it is owner or controlled, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, or with whom or which it is affiliated.

This latter carrier, under this bill, is made exempt from nearly all the burdens imposed by the bill upon other classes of carriers; it alone would be permitted to transport its commerce at cost, with no hampering restrictions, and it is manifest that this class of carrier and the commerce of its owner is given by this bill an enormous competitive advantage over commerce transported by carriers by water of the other classes.

The inevitable result would be that other carriers by water would be forced out of business by such unfair and unequal competitive conditions. And, on the other hand, the shipper who transported his own goods in his own vessel at cost would undoubtedly have an overwhelming advantage over his competitors, who would be forced to use the much higher cost transportation furnished either by the so-called "interstate common carrier by water", or "interstate contract carrier by water."

Undoubtedly large shippers of goods would be forced to secure their own water-transportation equipment, thereby forcing the other carriers out of business. It is to be noted that one of the great slogans of this administration and of preceding administrations has been "fair competition." The enactment of this bill would be so revolutionary as to destroy that slogan and substitute for it a system of unreasonable, unjust, and discriminatory regulation by the United States Government by which the term "fair competition" would be completely eliminated.

Those persons, firms, and corporations now engaged in the business of water carriers have honestly invested millions of dollars in their business and have at great effort and expense built up the merchant marine of this country. Surely this Congress would not intentionally destroy these investments. Since the beginning of our country our Congress has by legislation fostered a merchant marine, not only because of business reasons but for reasons for the public defense. We can well remember how, when, under the conditions prevailing during the World War, the world shipping was being destroyed, the United States, among all the nations of the world, was the one nation which was able to build and operate ships to take the place of those of other countries which were being destroyed. Surely after that experience this Congress would not contemplate the enactment into law of this bill.

No

Under this bill water carriers engaged in operation in 1934 would be granted certificates to operate upon application without hearing, but such certificates could be changed, canceled, or restricted as the Commission might determine. Carriers seeking to start new operations would be required to satisfy the Commission that the new proposed services were required by present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise the application would be denied. carrier would be allowed to serve any ports other than those covered by the certificate, nor could it extend, restrict, or abandon any part of its service without permission of the Commission. No carrier by water could operate without such certificate of convenience and necessity. No carrier would have power to fix or make changes in its rates without permission of the Commission; and even then such changes would be only made after investigations covering periods of years. This situation would only increase the competitive advantage of the so-called "private carrier" operating at cost of transportation.

Again, these water carriers, other than the private carriers, would be compelled to establish, under the supervision of the Commission, through rates and joint rates in connection with railroads, highway carriers, and other water carriers. They would not be allowed to transport any property produced, owned, or

controlled by themselves or in which they had any interest except articles necessary for the conduct of their respective business, unless the Commission, after a full investigation, determined that such transportation was in the public interest. These carriers would be compelled to publish, file, and post in the manner prescribed by the Commission every rate, charge, rule, and regulation affecting their respective transportation services; they must keep their accounts and make reports in such manner as the Commission prescribes; all their contracts, bills of lading, records, papers, and correspondence must be kept open at all times, not only for the Commission's inspection but for inspection by the public, and such carriers could not legally furnish transportation facilities or services except in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of such contracts.

By this law the Commission is given the power not to fix reasonable rates and charges for the so-called "contract carriers", but to prescribe minimum rates or charges or such rules, regulations, and practices or provisions of charters, agreements, etc., which would in its judgment secure and promote a national policy of coordinated transportation. This bill further requires that the Commission “shall give no advantage or preference to any such contract carriers in competition with any interstate common carrier." In fact, it is the avowed purpose of the proposed regulation of contract carriers to restrict their operations.

Mr. Eastman has stated "the chief reason for regulating these contract carriers is to protect the common carriers against cutthroat competition." Surely there would result from the enactment of this regulation the complete disappearance of the contract carrier, because he or it would find it impossible to carry on under

this law.

Many more objections might be logically urged against the enactment of this legislation. But because of the knowledge of this objector that not only the great majority of the water carriers but also the shippers by water are keenly interested in the defeat of this bill, it seems to this objector to be unnecessary for it to urge before this committee, and through it to the Congress, any more of the disastrous features of the proposed legislation.

Respectfully submitted.

THE VESSEL OWNERS AND CAPTAINS' ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA, By HOWARD M. LONG, Its Duly Authorized Solicitor.

BRIEF OF W. H. MACHEN, BOSTON, MASS., REPResenting Certain Owners of COASTWISE COAL-CARRYING STEAMERS

This statement is submitted by W. H. Machen, Boston, Mass., on behalf of the following Boston and New York companies: Atwater Steamship Co., Coastwise Transportation Corporation, Diamond Steamship Transportation Co., Fall River Navigation Co., Mystic Steamship Co., New England Coal & Coke Co., Pocahontas Fuel Co., Pocahontas_Steamship Co., C. H. Sprague & Sons, Inc., Staples Coal Co., M. & J. Tracy, Inc., and Wilmore Steamship Co.

GENERAL

The above-named companies include private and contract carriers by waterowning fleets of colliers engaged in transporting over 15,000,000 tons of bituminous coal annually between ports along the North Atlantic coast from Hampton Roads to Maine, representing substantially all of the coal shipped from southern ports. These colliers also carry for independent shippers other bulk cargoes, such as ore, coke, fertilizers, sulphur, and phosphate rock. This outside tonnage is essential to a sound, economical, and efficient operation of the coal-carrying trade and results in lower costs which make possible lower rates of water transportation to the consumers of coal and of these other bulk commodities. Colliers do not operate as common carriers.

Some of these companies operate specially designed coal discharging and reloading wharves, equipped with modern coal-handling machinery. The companies here represented are, therefore, private carriers, contract carriers, and wharfingers under the proposed Water Carrier Act (H. R. 5379).

It is submitted that colliers do not come within the purposes sought to be accomplished by the proposed legislation, and that the public interest does not require such regulation as is proposed in House bill 5379. It is respectfully requested that the bill be amended so that it will not injuriously affect the operations of the coal-carrying fleets and coal wharves of the North Atlantic coast.