Mr. WEICHEL. I did not understand it that way. I understood that the War Shipping Administration prepared this thing and had it introduced, or the Maritime Commission. I did not understand that it came from the operators at all, except a few. The CHAIRMAN. The bill did not, except for what I have said here and the testimony that was introduced. Mr. BONNER. Mr. Roth is here. The CHAIRMAN. You can read it just as well as I can. From all of their testimony, they have not prepared the bill and they do not submit anything. Mr. BRADLEY. In answer to the witness' statement a few minutes ago about postponing action until post-war, while I am one of those, too, who thinks that perhaps there is a little premature action, I believe we have testimony in these hearings to the effect that the ship operators, or many of them, in the foreign trade, at least, have their scouts out right now putting out feelers to find out what their post-war prospects are, and as I understand it what they are interested in knowing is what they can count on for the cost of the ships that they may want to buy for that post-war trade. That is the only reason that I can see for action at this time. Mr. BONNER. Mr. Roth is here. Mr. Roth, are the majority of ship operators anxious to have some immediate program worked out? FURTHER STATEMENT OF ALMON E. ROTH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SHIPPING, INC. Mr. ROTH. They are speaking for themselves on that subject. I have already appeared here, and the American merchant marine has stated through its spokesmen that they favor the adoption of a bill. Other spokesmen have stated, I think already, that they believe it is premature. Some others have questioned whether or not it is sound to attempt to fix a bill. There is no unanimity that the majority do favor the principle of a floor on prices. Mr. BONNER. I am not talking about a floor or any particular bill. I am merely asking you if a majority of ship operators think that some program should be worked out now for the disposition of the ships after the war. Mr. ROTH. I should say the majority do favor some bill to stabilize prices. They will speak for themselves. The CHAIRMAN. And if we do not do something, there is also very serious danger that something is going to be done, as Admiral Land said the other day, through other agencies. They can come along and bring in a bill for surplus-property disposal and we will have no right to kick about it. The Maritime Commission is charged with a responsibility to the American people for working out a program. You can stand aside, Mr. Hawk. Mr. HAWK. I would like to make one more comment. Mr. HAWK. I have attended the hearings here practically every minute since they opened on March 1, and I have heard the ship operators' testimony with regard to this bill, but I have not heard any of the ship operators say any word about employment, about creating employment for the seamen or for the men in the shipyards. The only thing that I have heard the ship operators state they are really concerned about is the price of these ships, what they are going to pay for them and what restrictions are going to be put on them. Mr. BONNER. Well, sir, if they are just laid up, then the group you represent will certainly be out of employment. We are trying to work out some plan where these ships will be utilized. Mr. HAWK. Our statement all the way through is that we want the operator to get into trades because it will help and it will furnish employment not only for the seamen, it will furnish employment in the shipyards, it will furnish employment in practically all industries in the steel industry, even in food and dairy products. It will certainly create more employment, and I think that is one of the problems that we are going to be faced with after the war, to find sufficient employment so that we do not have too much unemployment in this country. Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Hawk, I think that the presentation both you and Mr. Weisberger, speaking on behalf of not only himself but of Mr. Lundeberg, have made have been excellent, but I think your last statement is a little bit unfair, because if the operators cannot run these ships for a profit they cannot employ your men. Mr. HAWK. That is true. Mr. BRADLEY. Now, I think they are primarily concerned with operating those ships, and it necessarily follows that your men are going right along with them. We have had statements from some of the operating witnesses, or their representatives, pointing out exactly what you say, that the maintenance of the merchant marine in the post-war world is necessary, just as you point out, for the prosperity of our corn farmers and our wheat growers and our iron mines, our steel mills, our automobile manufacturers or anything else in this country. That goes without saying. And I do not think there has been any call made upon any of the operators to carry the torch, let us say, for the labor unions, because it gocs without saying that they cannot employ men, and you will have your men on the beach, if they cannot buy ships at a cost which will enable them to compete in the post-war world with the foreign shipper. Mr. HAWK. Congressman Bradley, Congressman Bonner asked the operators. He inferred that the operators were of the opinion-and he asked that question to make certain that he was correct-that they knew just about how much tonnage they would need now, so when the question was asked, the question was left hanging in the air by Mr. Roth, but they were concerned, were interested, in the prices, and so forth, of the vessels. Mr. BRADLEY. Do you not think that is a logical conclusion, that they must know, if they are going to plan for the post-war world, and if they have their scouts out all over the world looking for business, as I understand they have? It is logical to assume they have if they are on their toes. Then they certainly have got to know whether they are going to be able to compete in the post-war maritime trade, and that is directly dependent upon whether or not they can buy ships at a price which will permit them to operate, and at freight rates that will be competitive with other maritime nations. The CHAIRMAN. And we will compete with better ships, built more cheaply in foreign countries. Mr. BRADLEY. That is right. Mr. HAWK. I understood Mr. Roth-maybe I misinterpreted his statement to say that they thought the bill was a little bit too premature. The CHAIRMAN. Sure. Mr. HAWK. That is the whole bill. I did not hear him take out certain parts. I did not understand him to take out certain parts that were ready. It was primarily a little too premature to talk about how many ships they are going to operate in the post-war period. Mr. BRADLEY. Well, but, of course, you appreciate this, that the mere fact that we are holding hearings on March 1, 2, and 3 does not mean that this bill is going to be an act of Congress on the 4th. If it follows the usual trend of events, we will be quite lucky if this thing gets reported out of this committee before the 1st of April, and we will be lucky if we see it through the House by June, and then you have still got another shot at it over in the other body, over in the Senate. Mr. HAWK. I hope in its present form it never is passed. Mr. BRADLEY. We did have from Mr. Parmelee yesterday, I thought, very constructive criticism of this bill, taking it apart piece by piece, telling exactly what his group, that he represented, objected to in the bill, and I, for one, agree with you and with several other witnesses that I think we have got to do a lot of changing in this bill before we have anything that will be satisfactory, not only to the unions but also to the operators. The CHAIRMAN. So far as the presentation of the bill is concerned, I am responsible for the presentation of the bill, in carrying out what I conceive to be a World War policy, and after conference with the Maritime Commission and representatives of the Maritime Commission and the War Shipping Administration. If it is premature, I am premature. Mr. BRADLEY. I know, Judge, it has been a source of considerable worry to you for over a year. I know you have sweat blood over this thing for a year, trying to develop a good bill. Mr. ROTH. I would just like to clarify the record on the point Mr. Hawk has raised. He apparently was not here. On two occasions the federation has urged the need of an expanded merchant marine for the purpose of furnishing employment to our seagoing personnel. I do not think there has been any difference between employers and the unions or our seagoing personnel on that, because we are all in the same boat, pulling the same oars, and the same goose lays the golden eggs for the men that lays them for the American merchant marine. As to the point made about my statement about the necessity for a bill at this time, that was made in connection with the necessity of determining the needs before sales are made to foreign countries. Mr. HAWK. I am glad that Mr. Roth has put into the record that he was concerned about creating more employment, and so forth. I retract the statement I made. Mr. BRADLEY. Very fine. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. BENDIX. In talking about a ship sales bill The CHAIRMAN. We have heard you, have we not? Mr. BENDIX. I want to give you one word. The CHAIRMAN. Please make it one word. Mr. BENDIX. You are talking about a ship-sales bill. I thought you might be interested in knowing what the actual market price of Liberty ships is today. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. BENDIX. I will buy 20 of them at $65 a dead-weight ton, cash, 10 percent now, and the balance on delivery. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we have any authority now to sell them. If there is no one else to be heard today, the committee stands adjourned until Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene on Tuesday, March 6, 1945, at 10 a. m.) POST-WAR DISPOSITION OF MERCHANT VESSELS TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1945 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable Schuyler Otis Bland (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. All right, gentlemen. We will come to order. The hearings will proceed this morning until 12 or 12:30. We will not go on this afternoon. The bill for the nurses' draft will be up for consideration under the 5-minute rule. Members will have to try to be on the floor, and I want to be present when the bill is read for amendment. I presume the other members do. It is some what controversial. Colonel Gardner. STATEMENT OF COL. KENNETH GARDNER, ADMIRALTY ATTORNEY, NEW YORK CITY Colonel GARDNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Kenneth Gardner. I am an admiralty attorney, 80 Broad Street, New York. I appear here as counsel for Grace Lines, Inc.; American South African Lines, Inc.; Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.; New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co.; American Export Lines, Inc.; United States Lines Co.; Seas Shipping Co., Inc.; Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.; American President Lines, Ltd.; Oceanic Steamship Co., Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc.; and American Mail Line Ltd. Those companies, the committee, of course, knows, are companies engaged in the foreign trade operating under the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The CHAIRMAN. Operating on essential routes, I presume. Colonel GARDNER. They are all operating on what are known as essential routes. The Maritime Commission has laid out at the present time some 30 so-called essential routes, and these 12 lines operate those 30 essential routes. The CHAIRMAN. Without interrupting you, I think the specific routes were in accordance with a survey made by Mr. Kennedy when he was chairman of the Commission, were they not? Colonel GARDNER. That was the underlying foundation. Not Mr. Kennedy alone, of course. It was the Maritime Commission. They prepared an economic survey of the American merchant marine. It is a document that has been published by the United States Maritime Commission under date of November 10, 1937. It was submitted to the |