Atlantic to the Pacific ports of the United States and vice versa) and in the trade to near-by foreign countries. By a decision of the United States circuit court of appeals, ninth circuit, in the case of the bark J. D. Peters, it was held, since the issue of the last report, that such allotments when made before a shipping commissioner are illegal. The decision (Appendix M) does not, however, make it clear whether such allotments when made outside the office of shipping commissioner do or do not hold good. All doubt on this point will be removed by the passage of the section under consideration.

The bill fixes the maximum allotment in oversea navigation at the amount of one month's wages, the same maximum as is fixed by the British law. While the purposes to which the advance may be applied is not defined by the British act, it is proposed to limit the allotment in the United States to the payment of just debts for board and clothing. The law at present restricts allotments to this purpose, but its enforcement has been difficult, and in previous years the custom grew up of making requests for such allotments in a lump sum. In September, 1897, instructions were issued requiring applicants for allotments to state specifically the number of days for which board was charged and the articles and prices of clothing for which it was claimed the seaman was in debt. As was anticipated, the enforcement of these instructions was resisted at the outset, especially in San Francisco, by those who had included illegal charges under the former lump-sum method. By the method now in use the opportunities for deceit and fraud have been reduced, and can be wholly checked, if the seaman's own cooperation can be secured in furnishing testimony to obtain convictions under the penal clauses of section 24 of the bill. Hitherto the law has been vague and inadequate on the subject of penalties. It is proposed to make it clear and sufficient, but it will not be selfenforcing. Evidence must be obtained in order to secure convictions by the courts, and this evidence must be furnished by the seamen themselves. The officers of the Government can at best do no more than show that prima facie there is suspicion of fraud and violation of law.

The act of 1884, as amended by the act of 1886, prescribes that the law of the United States in regard to allotments shall also apply to crews of foreign vessels which are shipped in the ports of this country. The necessity for such law is obvious. If there be not uniformity the foreign vessel, by tempting the sailor with an advance of a considerable amount of ready money, may obtain quicker dispatch from an American port than an American vessel, especially at times when the number of deep-sea sailors is small. On the other hand, the difficulties in the way of enforcing the law are considerable. Seamen on foreign merchant vessels ship before the consul of the nation to which the vessel belongs. Officers of the United States, accordingly, have no means of ascertaining directly and officially the terms of the agreement or the amount of allotments or advances allowed. Under the impression that the law was not fully understood, the Bureau has requested reports from shipping commissioners as to the practice at their respective ports. These reports (Appendix B) show considerable departures from the law, and great variety in practice, even among the consuls of the same nation. Thus, the British consul at New Orleans, it is stated, refuses to approve any advances or allotments, while at Port Townsend an advance of $30 is allowed. In San Francisco the letter of the American law is followed in shipment of seamen on British vessels, while the German cousul does not sanction

advances or allotments. In Philadelphia it seems that a system of what appears to be promissory notes, indorsed by the board-house keepers' association, is in operation. The application of our domestic laws to foreign seamen and agreements made before foreign consuls in American ports is one of some delicacy, requiring the cooperation of the Department of State. So long as our laws on the subject remain in a form so unsatisfactory, subject to varying judicial decisions, with insufficient penalties and irregular enforcement, the Bureau has hesitated to move in the matter. The enactment of the explicit provisions of section 24, corresponding in its essential feature with the British law, will undoubtedly permit a desirable uniformity in practice hereafter.

SEAWORTHINESS OF VESSELS.

The laws of the United States concerning the seaworthiness of sailing vessels are far behind those of other maritime nations. The American delegates to the International Marine Conference at Washington urged the importance of an amendment of these laws eight years ago, and the subject has since on several occasions been brought to the notice of Congress. The rush of men from the Pacific coast to Alaska, following the discovery of gold, led last year to the employment of unseaworthy vessels, and in several instances disaster, with considerable loss of life, ensued. Section 11 of the bill under consideration includes substantially the provisions of the British law punishing persons who may be guilty of sending to sea a vessel in an unseaworthy condition. There are few offenses against humanity more grievous than this, and the proposed section will unquestionably commend itself to Congress and to all parties at interest. Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the bill strengthen the laws concerning the survey of a ship for seaworthiness and the adequacy in quantity and quality of its supplies.

FOOD ON MERCHANT VESSELS.

There is now no statutory scale of provisions for the crews of American merchant vessels, the scale in section 4612 of the Revised Statutes being subject to any change in the shipping articles. This scale has been carefully revised by the Marine-Hospital Service, and the revision, in its essentials, is incorporated in section 23 of the bill. It is also established as a minimum bill of fare, according to which the seaman may at any time demand to be supplied. In this respect the bill is a distinct advance over the British law, which, beyond a supply of antiscorbutics, leaves the provisioning of merchant vessels a matter to be determined by mutual agreement.

REGULATION OF SAILING VESSELS AND THEIR OFFICERS.

The adjournment of Congress delayed action of the conference committee on Senate bill 622, which provides for the issue of licenses to the masters and first mates of sailing vessels over 700 tons and for the inspection of the hulls of such vessels. The points of difference between the bill as passed by the Senate and as passed by the House are not radical and can be readily adjusted. A change in dates is now desirable. The requirement of licenses in the first section should not go into effect until July 1, 1900, and the act should take effect July 1, 1899. The American delegates to the International Marine Con

ference of 1890 earnestly recommended an extension of the system of Government licenses to the officers of sailing vessels. It has not been considered practicable to extend the system at one time to all vessels over 100 tons, as is done in Great Britain. The bill under consideration applies only to sail vessels of over 700 tons, of which there are about 650 in our merchant fleet. The masters and mates of smaller sailing vessels will, however, gradually apply for examination in order to obtain certificates of qualification for the command of larger vessels, and by natural process the act will thus in time extend itself to cover substantially all our sailing vessels engaged in the deep-sea trade. There can be no question of the propriety of this legislation. At present there is no standard of qualification for the command of large sail vessels, though the masters of such vessels are under obligations to the Government for the care of their crews, and are responsible not only for the security of their own vessels, but also in a measure for the safety of other vessels which they pass. It is proposed to allow ample time for the examination and certification of masters and mates by the Government inspectors before the law requiring Government certificates from such officers shall go into operation.

The bill also provides for the inspection by the Government of hulls of sail vessels of over 700 tons and of sail vessels carrying passengers. During the calendar year the number of catastrophes on the Pacific coast showed the necessity for legislation on this subject, and for the present the bill proposed seems to be an adequate supplement to the private system of inspection provided by marine underwriters. The passage of Senate bill 622 (Appendix A) is recommended.

66

BOARDING OF VESSELS.

Investigation conducted by the Bureau has disclosed the fact that the practice of boarding vessels before they have been docked or the unlading of cargo has begun admits of serious abuses of various kinds at some ports. Other ports seem to be free from these abuses. The laws on the subject are insufficient. Section 9 of chapter 374, Statutes of 1882 (the passenger act) imposes a penalty of $1,000 on the master of "any such steamship or other vessel" who permits his ship to be boarded in the United States by any person except the pilot, customs or health officers, consuls, or agents of the vessel until it has been put in charge of the customs officer, or thereafter, unless with the consent of the customs officer. Turning to the first section of the act of 1882, one will find that the vessels to which this act applies are "a steamship or other vessel whereon immigrant passengers or passengers other than cabin passengers have been taken at any port or place in a foreign country or dominion (ports or places in foreign territory contiguous to the United States excepted)." In brief, this law concerning the boarding of vessels applies only to the limited number which carry immigrants. Section 4606 of the Revised Statutes subjects any person who boards a vessel, without the master's consent, except an officer authorized to do so by law, to a fine of $200 and imprisonment for not over six months. Under the quarantine act of 1893 the Secretary of the Treasury has power to regulate the boarding of vessels until they have passed a sanitary inspection. With the master's consent in all other cases any person may board a vessel for any purpose.

Reports received from shipping commissioners and other Treasury officers (Appendix N) show that at New York, San Francisco, Phila

delphia, Boston, and Baltimore it is a practice of runners for sailors' boarding houses, clothing stores, and other concerns to board vessels, especially sailing vessels in the oversea trade, and solicit seamen to come ashore before the vessel is docked or has come to regular anchorage. Masters connive at the practice, because thereby the seamen may be put down as deserters, and forfeitures or deductions from wages may be made. The practice is not confined to American vessels, but extends to those of other nationalities. It is reported that these runners at times bring liquor aboard with them and spread demoralization among the crew. No law can be devised to prevent seamen so disposed from a drinking bout at the end of a long voyage, but a law can be drawn which will prevent the beginning of that bout on shipboard before the vessel has been brought to the place in port from which its cargo is to be discharged and before they have received the wages due them. On this score it is not necessary to add anything to the instructive reports of shipping commissioners and others who have made the investigation (Appendix N). The evil is not confined to the demoralization and plunder of seamen. There is reason to believe that in some instances and at some ports, smuggling, especially of prohibited articles, is covertly carried on, and that seamen are encouraged to violate the revenue laws and the Government is thus defrauded. The way is open also to the violation of other laws of the United States. As a desirable measure of protection to seamen in American ports, it is recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury be empowered to frame and enforce regulations concerning the boarding of vessels, and that suitable penalties for the violation of those regulations be prescribed. By vesting discretionary power in the Secretary, regulations can be framed to meet abuses and can be modified from time to time, if necessary, to meet differing conditions in different ports. The draft of the bill proposed may be found in Appendix A. Numerous precedents in the laws for the bestowal of this discretionary power can be cited, if necessary.

DISCRIMINATION IN PILOTAGE AGAINST SAILING VESSELS.

The opposition to the bill to put sail vessels and steam vessels in the coasting trade on an equality in the matter of pilotage charges has recently been based almost wholly on the fact that two years ago the pilots of certain South Atlantic and Gulf ports had just given up their sailing vessels and purchased new steam pilot boats. It was argued with some force that the pilot associations in these ports should be allowed time in which to pay off indebtedness incurred to improve the pilot service. The last year has been a profitable one for the pilots of the South Atlantic States, and the argument hitherto so effective as an appeal to sympathy can not again be employed. The bill must be considered on its economic merits or demerits.

Under the joint operation of Federal and State laws in the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas pilotage charges are levied on American sail vessels in the coasting trade which are not levied on American steam vessels in the same trade. The operation of natural causes which tend to drive out of existence sail vessels is thus intensified by law. It is not claimed that these charges are imposed for services actually performed. Fair compensation for assistance rendered is not opposed by any one. Under the system in vogue the master of a sail vessel is required to pay an annual toll, and

thereafter he is under no obligation to take a pilot. Security of navigation thus does not enter at all into the system. Stripped of plausibilities the system imposes a tax on one kind of navigation because it has been too weak to lift a burden from itself of which the stronger and better organized steam-coasting interests long ago rid themselves. The bill is limited in its operations and considers all possible dangers to navigation. Only sail vessels of which the masters or mates have passed the examination prescribed for and obtained the license awarded to masters and mates as pilots of steam vessels are to be exempt from pilotage when no pilot is in fact employed. It will be a considerable gain to safety in navigation under any circumstances thus to require masters and mates of sail vessels to qualify as pilots. The expenditure of many millions of dollars by Congress in improving channels and removing bars at the ports where pilotage charges are still obligatory on sail vessels, has reduced the necessity for such charges, unless services are rendered. These improvements have generally resulted in a considerable increase in shipping engaged in foreign trade, notably at Galveston, and the revenue derived by pilots from this increase should be sufficient to maintain an adequate pilotage service, especially when supplemented by the contributions of vessels in the coasting trade which employ pilots.

It is contended that Congress is the proper tribunal to which to appeal for a correction of this unfair discrimination—

First, because the Constitution vests in Congress the right to regulate commerce, of which pilotage is essentially a feature, and Congress, by its first act relating to pilotage, reserved to itself the power to regulate it as occasion requires;

Second, because Congress, by exempting steam vessels from State pilotage charges, except for services rendered, itself created the discrimination which now calls for correction;

Third, because Congress, by its liberal appropriations for improvements of the harbors in the nine States which still exact pilotage fees from coasting sailing vessels where services are not now rendered, has removed the reason by which such charges were formerly justified.

A bill to remove this discrimination against American sailing vessels in the coasting trade (S. 1030, Appendix A) is now before the Senate Committee on Commerce. Its passage has been asked for by the principal maritime associations of the North Atlantic coast.

REPORTS OF SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS.

There are now in operation eighteen United States shipping commissioners' offices at the following ports: Baltimore, Bath, Boston, New Bedford, New Orleans, Newport News, New York, Norfolk, Pascagoula, Pensacola, Philadelphia, Portland, Port Townsend, Providence, Rockland, Rockport, San Francisco, and Wilmington, N. C. The expense of operating these offices during the past fiscal year was $58,387.50, compared with $64,034.71 for the previous fiscal year. The reduction in cost of operating these offices was effected by the Secretary of the Treasury in part by a revision of the salary lists and in part by the temporary suspension of a portion of the force at the New York office. This suspension was due to the fact that the war with Spain interfered seriously with American shipping at that port. The four great express liners of the American Line between New York and Southampton were for a time in the service of the Navy Department as auxiliary cruisers. Trade with Cuba and Porto Rico came virtu