tant American seaport. Within the last few years the Federal Government has expended upward of $6,000,000 on deepening the channel and harbor at Galveston. In 1890 the American steam tonnage entering and clearing that port in foreign trade was 16,953 tons; foreign, 260,844 tons; in 1897 the American steam tonnage entering and clearing there in foreign trade was 2,926 tons, and the foreign was 1,012,421 tons. The Bureau does not know the sum spent on the Mississippi jetties and on the approaches to New Orleans, but they amount to millions of dollars. Since 1890 foreign steam tonnage entering and clearing New Orleans has increased 50 per cent, to 2,443,092 tons for 1897, while the American steam tonnage in foreign trade entering and clearing at that port has risen from 199,521 tons in 1890 to only 211,419 tons in 1897.

That this country derives great benefit from its expenditures for maritime purposes is not, of course, disputed. It is aimed to emphasize the fact, at the risk of wearying by reiteration, that the great improvements and safeguards to navigation, which are a necessity to modern steamships, are furnished by the United States without charge to the shipping which benefits by them, while in other countries direct charges are imposed on shipping for substantially all such improvements and safeguards. The British system could not be more luminously set forth than in the following brief extract (in which the liberty of italicizing a few words has been taken by this office) concerning the "deepening of the Thames," from Lloyd's Gazette, the recognized spokesman for British shipping interests:

The conservators of the Thames have decided upon a scheme which will have the effect of bringing about a considerable improvement in the navigable channels of the river between Gravesend and the Nore. Owners of deep-draft vessels, like those engaged in the Eastern and American trade, demanded some time ago that if London was to hold its own in competition with Liverpool, Southampton, and other ports it was necessary to give the Thames a uniform depth from the Nore to Gravesend of something like 30 feet at low water spring tides, and the representatives of some of the large shipping companies went so far as to insist that this great depth should be carried as far as the entrance to the Royal Albert Docks, or, in other words, 16 miles higher up the river. In the scheme upon which they have resolved the conservators propose to obtain not a channel 30 feet deep, but one which at dead low water spring tides shall in no place between the Nore and Gravesend be less than 1,000 feet in width and 26 in depth, and they propose to effect this great improvement without any addition to the burden of charge already borne by shipowners. It is pointed out by the conservators that a low water channel 26 feet deep, extending from the Nore to Gravesend, will be sufficient for at least nine-tenths of the shipping regularly entering the port of London, and they do not consider it reasonable that owners generally should be heavily taxed in order that a still greater depth may be maintained for the benefit of the few vessels remaining. The contemplated improvement will be accomplished solely by means of dredging.

RECIPROCAL TONNAGE-TAX EXEMPTIONS.

By the act of May 28, 1864 (found in section 4232 of the Revised Statutes), mail steamships between the United States and Brazil were exempted from tonnage taxes at American ports so long as a similar immunity was granted in Brazilian ports. This act is no longer operative, though it remains unrepealed on the books. It serves no useful purpose whatever. Its repeal is recommended, for its existence may lead to a misapprehension by foreign governments.

By section 14 of the act of June 26, 1884, Congress directed the President to suspend the collection of tonnage taxes on vessels entered from the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Bahamas, Bermudas, West Indies, Mexico, and Central America down to and including

Aspinwall (Colon) and Panama, in so far as those rates were in excess of similar taxes imposed at foreign ports in the geographical territory described. By section 11 of the act of June 19, 1886, Congress in obedience to the "most favored nation" clause of our treaties, extended this principle of reciprocity in tonnage taxation and directed the President to reduce our tonnage taxes on vessels entering the United States from a foreign country to the rates imposed by that country, and where a foreign country imposed no tonnage taxes, light dues, or equivalent charges on vessels from the United States, the President was directed to exempt vessels from that country from tonnage taxes at American ports. By section 12 of that act the President was directed to invite all foreign nations to abolish tonnage taxes, light dues, and official fees for services to vessels. The operations of this principle of exemption from tonnage taxation were considered in detail in the reports of the Bureau for 1895, 1896, and 1897. The repeal of the sections which embody the principle is again most earnestly recommended. There is no real reciprocity in the project. No maritime nation except Denmark has eyer accepted the invitation which was issued by the President in 1886 to abolish all tonnage taxes, light dues, and other charges on shipping. Tonnage taxes, light dues, or equivalent charges of maritime nations, as already shown, are almost without exception greater than those now imposed by the United States. Long before the act of 1886 was passed the Netherlands had abolished tonnage taxes and light dues as a measure for the benefit of Dutch shipping. Since 1887 vessels from the Netherlands, accordingly, have been exempt from tonnage taxes in the United States. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1897, the American bark Rebecca Crowell, 557 net tons, and the American steamship (foreign built) Matteawan, of 2,499 net tons, each entered Rotterdam once from the United States. Each cleared from there in ballast. This was the entire extent of trade under the American flag between the United States and Holland for the fiscal year. These two vessels of 3,056 net tons were saved by our reciprocity law $183.36, at 6 cents per ton, at Rotterdam. The eight steamships of the Netherlands-American line are exempted annually from the payment of $6,500 at New York. The foreign tonnage entering the United States from Holland during 1897 amounted to 263 vessels of 527,711 net tons. For every cent which has been saved to an American vessel entering Dutch ports, we have in effect paid one dollar to a foreign vessel entering the United States from the Netherlands.

During the last fiscal year the Danish Government announced that tonnage taxes and light dues in Denmark had been abolished, and the President was requested by its minister to exempt vessels from Denmark from tonnage taxes in the United States. Careful examination appeared to show that at the free port of Copenhagen no taxes equivalent to our tonnage taxes were imposed on vessels from the United States, and on July 19, 1898, the President's proclamation was issued, as required by law, exempting vessels from Copenhagen from tonnage taxes. Our direct trans-Atlantic trade with Denmark is in fact confined to Copenhagen. During the fiscal year 1897 there was no American vessel whatever which cleared from the United States to Denmark, and our shipping accordingly gets no benefit from this compulsory arrangement of our own law. As 59 per cent of the tonnage entering Danish ports is Danish, the Danish law is for the plain benefit of Danish vessels. In its operations our law is equally for the promotion of Danish shipping. American vessels are not a factor in the case.

The repeal of the sections of law granting exemptions from tonnage taxes in return for like exemptions by a foreign nation is recommended for these reasons:

1. Its operations are uneven. Some balance of interests is necessary to the establishment of any genuine reciprocity, and that principle has been improperly invoked in the matter of tonnage taxation. 2. It is an unbusinesslike and unprofitable bargain. During the twelve years the law has been in force we have in effect given a bonus of hundreds of thousands of dollars to foreign shipping in return for an actual saving of only a few thousand dollars to American vessels. 3. The invitation of the President has been outstanding for years, and the failure to accept it is sufficient to warrant its withdrawal. Where it has been accepted in semblance by certain ports, the benefits already enjoyed by our competitors have been great enough to warrant now a termination of the arrangement.

4. No other maritime nation has ever entered upon the policy of making its shipping taxes dependent on the charges of foreign ports. From their nature such charges are numerous and constantly shifting, and the maintenance of equality is difficult as a matter of administration. These charges, like other taxes, may well be adjusted to meet the reasonable requirements of revenue. They are now, under the law cited, which does not permit Executive discretion, so adjusted as to promote foreign shipping in American ports.

ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS FOR 1898.

The new British law to which reference has been made imposes light dues on yachts. Instructions have accordingly been issued that after April 1, 1899, when the law will take effect, British yachts will be subject to tonnage taxes in ports of the United States.

An examination of the charges on American vessels in Belgian ports is still in progress. The Belgian Government has asked that vessels from that country be exempt from tonnage taxes under the provisions of section 11 of the act of 1886. American vessels cleared for Belgium during 1897 amounted to 46,555 tons. Vessels under foreign flags during the same period entered the United States from Belgium aggregated 617,585 tons.

Vessels from the Island of Trinidad, West Indies, have been exempt from tonnage taxes since April 7, 1885. The Bureau has recently been advised that tonnage charges are in fact imposed on American vessels at that island. An investigation by the Department of State has shown that such is the fact, and the exemption in American ports will terminate under the law.

Vessels from the ports of San Juan and Mayaguez in Porto Rico have been exempt since 1885. This exemption has not been affected by the military occupation of the island by the United States. It is assumed that when Congress provides a system of government for the island vessels from all ports and places in Porto Rico will be exempt from tonnage taxes in ports of the United States as are vessels in the coasting trade.

By virtue of the power of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy to levy contributions upon foreign territory held by the military forces of the United States, under direction of the President regulations have been prepared and put into operation imposing tonnage taxes on vessels entering the ports of Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. The uniform rate of 20 cents per ton (divided at Manila

into 10 cents on entry and 10 cents on clearance) has been adopted for vessels in the foreign trade, and 2 cents per ton on vessels in the coasting trade at ports in possession of the military forces of the United States. The tax can be collected promptly and without difficulty, and is thus especially adapted to the purposes of a war contribution. The regulations on the subject are printed in Appendix G. On October 1, 1898, the new Mexican law (Appendix H) in regard to tonnage taxes went into effect. Its provisions are being examined, especially in view of the Mexican system of measurement, which has hitherto produced tonnage results much in excess of those obtained under the laws of other nations. This investigation will be concluded in time, it is believed, to insure prompt consideration of the application by the Mexican Government for the benefits bestowed by section 4228 and exemption from the provisions of sections 4219 and 4225 of the Revised Statutes. By proclamation of the President, dated November 12, 1898, and issued pursuant to the act of July 24, 1897 (Appendix G), Mexican vessels under certain limitations are now exempt from the discriminating duties imposed by section 4219.

LEGISLATION CONCERNING SEAMEN.

The efforts of the past three years in the line of improvement in the laws relating to seamen on American merchant vessels, which have already resulted in the enactment of several wholesome statutes, promise, at the coming session of Congress, to secure general revision of those laws in several important respects.

At the last session the Senate unanimously passed a comprehensive measure of 26 sections covering the subjects of penalties for the violation of civil contracts by seamen, allotments of wages, conduct and discipline on shipboard, relief of distressed seamen, seaworthiness of vessels, provisions on merchant vessels, payment of wages, and other matters. The House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries unanimously reported the bill without amendment, and it is in a position where it can be brought forward early in the coming session and acted upon promptly. The measure is a compromise, and as such is not, of course, wholly satisfactory to all the apparently conflicting interests involved. It embodies, however, the results of painstaking inquiries, frequent hearings, and extensive correspondence, covering three sessions of Congress, by the Senate Committee on Commerce and the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Most of the propositions embodied in it have been set forth in some detail in the reports of the Bureau for 1895, 1896, and 1897. The controversial stages of the measure seem to be over, and definite action may now be expected. The provisions of the bill, compared with the provisions of the existing law proposed to be amended or repealed, may be found in a form convenient for ready reference in Appendix A.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DESERTION.

The widest departure proposed from existing law is the proposition to make the contract of the seaman terminable at will in ports of the United States. The law now prescribes imprisonment as the penalty for desertion or "quitting work." The contract to labor is a civil contract, for the violation of which either party is ordinarily liable for damages to be fixed by the courts. In 1880 the British Parliament abolished imprisonment for desertion in ports of Great Britain,

substituting therefor a process of arrest and conveyance on shipboard by force, if necessary. The amendment to our law proposed in sections 9 and 19 goes a step further, abolishing imprisonment for desertion in ports of the United States and retaining as the penalty the forfeiture of effects on board and wages earned. As desertions usually occur before the beginning of the voyage, when no wages have been earned, it is in effect proposed to abolish any penalty for desertion in a port of the United States. While this change in the letter of the law is apparently radical, the change in the maritime customs of the country is not great. Arrests and imprisonment for desertion in the United States are rare. Such desertions usually occur when a vessel is about to leave port, and the delay and expense attendant upon arrest are too great to warrant that procedure. The usual course is to obtain substitutes or to go to sea undermanned. The purpose of the present law is supposed to be exemplary rather than punitive, but it may fairly be questioned whether its mere presence on the statute books deters seamen from desertion. Should sections 9 and 19 become law, it is not improbable that for a brief time there may be some embarrassment and delay, with accompanying expense, to American sailing vessels in the coasting trade and the trade to near-by foreign ports. Such was the effect of the law in Great Britain, upon which full reports by American consuls at the principal British seaports may be found in the report of this Bureau for 1895, pages 185-190. One certain effect of the law will be to abolish in practice, as they have been abolished by judicial decision and statute, all allotments and advances in the coasting trade, a result which should contribute toward the emancipation of the seaman from the crimp and extortionate boarding-house keeper. It is not to be expected that wages will be paid in advance so long as the uncertainty that they will be earned has the sanction of law.

The abolition of imprisonment for desertion in the United States, it may be predicted, will have important ulterior effects upon the laws relating to contracts for labor upon the sea. Hitherto such contracts have been strongly differentiated by law from the usual agreements between employer and employee. While unusual penalties have been imposed on the seaman for breach of contract, unusual obligations and penalties have also been prescribed for the shipowner or master who should deviate in any respect from the letter or the spirit of his agreement with the seaman. The opinion was ventured in this report last year that "the sphere of application of distinctive laws which relate to labor on the sea is becoming constantly narrower. 99 The unanimous approval by the Senate of the United States, after mature deliberation, of this radical departure from the theory of maritime law, that force may be employed to compel the seaman to perform labor which he has contracted to perform, is an event of significance in the history of legislation. It foreshadows a general change in the nature of the contract and an ultimate abandonment by this country of the traditional doctrine of nations that the seaman is the nation's ward.

ALLOTMENTS OF WAGES.

The abuses which exist under the system of allotments of wages, partly through violations of the law and partly through defects of the law itself, have been fully discussed in former reports. Section 24 of the bill offers a remedy for these abuses. It is proposed to abolish allotments of every kind in the coasting trade (except trade from the