same session of the legislature by the House praying Congress to retain Governor Gruening as their Governor. Senator CAPEHART. I take it you have the equivalent of Democrats and Republicans up there. The witness has not asked that the Senate memorial be made a part of the record, but I will be very happy, when Mr. Skinner is finished, Mr. Bartlett, to have you make a statement in respect to the matter. Mr. SKINNER. It probably all goes to prove that memorials are rarely carried out. Senator CAPEHART. It goes to prove you can get a person to sign most any kind of a petition. Mr. SKINNER. I have not anything else, Senator, unless you have some questions. Senator CAPEHART. I do not believe I have. Do you wish to make a statement with respect to the memorial, Delegate Bartlett? Delegate BARTLETT. I would merely ask that I could file it, although I do not see what either of these has to do with the subject at issue. Senator CAPEHART. He did not ask it be made a part of the record. Delegate BARTLETT. Filed for the use of the committee. Senator CAPEHART. All he said was he could put into the record a memorial asking for the impeachment, if that was it, of the Governor of Alaska. Do you want to make a statement that you could likewise put one into the record? Delegate BARTLETT. I likewise can put in the record not a photostatic copy because I do not have one, but I will have one typed, from the House with a contrary intent and purpose. And since rebuttals are in order, Mr. Chairman, I should like the record to show, unless it can be successfully contradicted by Mr. Skinner or others of his company, that the report printed in the magazine which has been filed for the use of the committee was based upon material which, I understand, was gathered by Dr. Burd after he had been hired by the Alaska Steamship Co. to make an impartial, independent survey. That is all. Senator CAPEHART. Does anyone else have anything to say? Mr. CLAFP. There were a couple of remarks I did not have a chance to make last night. Senator CAPEHART. You may proceed. FURTHER STATEMENT OF NORTON CLAPP, PRESIDENT, ALASKA TRANSPORTATION CO., SEATTLE, WASH. Mr. CLAPP. There was some reference to a $20 rate on automobiles accompanied by a passenger to Haines. We recently filed this tariff in anticipation of being able to handle it when we place our passenger vessel steamship George Washington in service next month. It is not a phony rate. We are looking forward to being able to serving Haines. We also think if we can get this ship of ours furnished she is going to be on a 10-day schedule and a fast schedule, and we can do a good job in reestablishing the good name of the American merchant marine. In that connection, it is our policy at the present time to reserve 20 percent of our space for the use of Alaskans not only to and from the United States but interport because that is due largely to the fact that these same Canadian vessels do cater to round-trip tourists. Now, the 20 percent will be affected somewhat, and our policy will be affected somewhat, by your decision in this matter. You asked here that there be filed as a part of the record, a copy of the interim contract under Public Law 12. Just so the record will be fully complete, I would like to suggest there also be inserted at that time a copy of the arbitration award of January 31 and of the supplemental arbitration decision of April 2. Senator CAPEHART. Without objection, we will instruct the clerk of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee to secure all three copies and they will be printed in the record at the point where we directed that the other be printed. Mr. CLAPP. You asked yesterday what would happen if nothing is done prior to June 30. I would like to comment on that briefly. Mr. CLAPP. The Maritime Commission has today and has until March 31 of next year authority to operate a general agency. It seems manifest to me that we will automatically have a general agency at that time if nothing is done. Senator CAPEHART. What do you mean by "general agency"? Mr. CLAPP. A Government operation of ships similar to the wartime Government operation under the War Shipping Administration. Senator CAPEHART. In other words, if the Congress take no action on extending Public Law 12, the Maritime Commission will be in the Alaskan shipping business? Mr. CLAPP. That is my judgment, sir. This amounts to a departure from our policy of trying to move away from Government operations to private. It really would amount to a confession of failure. All of the Alaska operators have been exploring this question for months. We have had lots of discussions. The matter has been before the congressional subcommittee, and at present we are awaiting a report on the matter from the United States Maritime Commission. We are here in the city of Washington for the purpose of sitting down and working this thing out, and we hope it will be worked out so that we can go home. Senator CAPEHART. May I ask this question: Why do you not purchase these ships and operate them on your own 100-percent responsibility? Mr. CLAPP. For the reason that trade itself will not support such a capital investment in a private merchant marine. Do you want me to elaborate on that, sir? Senator CPAEHART. No. In other words, your answer is that you feel that from this time on, or at least at the present time, to be successful and serve the Alaska trade, the Government must subsidize the operation? Mr. CLAPP. As you raise rates, you soon will arrive at a point where there will be diminishing returns. We do not know how close to that ceiling we are. The people in Alaska say we are at that ceiling. We may be or may not be, we do not know. Senator CAPEHART. A little would depend on the price you pay for the ships, would it not? Mr. CLAPP. Yes, sir. I would think that any such program to be worked out-and one of the programs that has been suggested is the selling of ships at a reduced price to hold the rate base at a lower figure. It may be that will be the solution. We were somewhat surprised, all of us, at the word we received about 2 weeks ago, that Commissioner Mellon reported to the congressional committee, in his judgment, the world situation justified a return to Government operation. We have since discussed the matter with the Commissioner. He has suggested that we try to develop something short of that sort of a program as he, himself, is opposed to Government operation as compared with private whenever it is practicable, We are today trying to work that out, and we are very hopeful of being able to submit to Commissioner Mellon and the congressional subcommittee a workable plan that will constitute a modification of Public Law 12 and a modification of the interim agreement which will remove these objectionable features that have been testified to. Senator CAPEHART. While this subcommittee has no authority over Public Law 12, and should confine its questioning to the two bills, it is authorized to sit upon, being a member of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, which naturally will have to act upon Public Law 12, is it your thought that Public Law 12 should be extended? Mr. CLAPP. I believe it should be extended either in its present or in some modified form as some form of subsidy is going to be essential to accomplish the objectives of keeping the lines operating privately and to hold the rates at a level which the territorial people feel they must be held to. Senator CAPEHART. Would I be out of order if I asked Mr. Skinner the same question? Mr. SKINNER. Presently, all three lines are working together on a proposal, and, yes, I can say we would be in favor of an extension of the interim agreement, but for a much longer period of time, Senator. The result of this last interim agreement has meant that we spent about two-thirds of our time either in Washington or making preparations for another trip to Washington. We have had very little time to pay any attention to our operations. Senator CAPEHART. I can well understand that. What about Mr. Semar of the Northland? Mr. SEMAR. We share that same feeling. Senator CAPEHART. You understand this subcommittee has no authority to make any such inquiry, but being a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I simply took the opportunity. It is my understanding the House will hold hearings on it. Mr. CLAPP. We hope they will. Senator CAPEHART. Either the House or the Senate, one, I am confident, will hold hearings on the subject, and maybe both. Mr. CLAPP. I just want to give you assurance on the part of us all we are working at this thing, and we feel we can work out a solution, and we are hoping to turn up with it shortly. Senator CAPEHART. Thank you. Without objection, I shall recess this committee, subject to the call of the chairman at a later date. One of the reasons that I do this is that I think we want to hear from the Maritime Commission, from the Chairman or some of the officials, and secondly, I rather feel that the subject matter we have been discussing for the past 2 days possibly should be considered in relationship to Public Law 12. I rather feel that the whole subject is tied in together. I may be wrong in that conclusion, but we will recess to the call of the chairman. (Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee recessed, subject to the call of the chairman.) (The following were subsequently submitted for the record:) Hon. WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr., PORT OF SEATTLE, Seattle 11, Wash., April 23, 1948. Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Re Senate bills S. 1834 and S. 2092. MY DEAR SENATOR: The Port of Seattle, whom I have the honor of representing as president of the commission, the governing body of the said municipal corporation, is vitally interested in the coastwise and Alaskan commerce and as such has provided facilities for the docking and berthage of vessels and the warehousing of supplies intended for Alaskan delivery. Based upon many years of experience, it is my contention and the contention of the port of Seattle that to authorize Canadian carriers to transport cargo and passengers from the continental United States to Alaskan ports, as well as being contrary to the best interests of all concerned, would soon result in the loss of all of the American business to Alaska by American carriers. It is no secret that the Canadian operators can, with their lower operating costs, operate much less expensively than can American operators. The port of Seattle has therefore passed a resolution protesting its strong opposition to the passage of the above Senate bills. A certified copy of said resolution is enclosed herewith. Respectfully yours, J. A. EARLEY, President. I, A. B. Terry, port commissioner, having been duly elected and qualified and acting as secretary of the port commission of the Port of Seattle, do hereby certify the attached copy of Resolution No. 1254 to be a true and correct and compared copy of the original Resolution No. 1254 on file and of record. Witness my hand and the seal of the port commission of the Port of Seattle this 23d day of April 1948. [SEAL] A. B. TERRY, Secretary. RESOLUTION No. 1254 A resolution of the port commission of the port of Seattle opposing the passage of Senate bills Nos. 1834 and 2092. Be it resolved by the Port Commission of the port of Seattle, that Whereas there are now pending in the United States Senate two bills (S. 1834 and S. 2092) which amend the coastwise laws of the United States so as to permit Canadian vessels to transport passengers between Alaska ports and to permit Canadian transcontinental rail and connecting water carriers to transport cargo from continental United States to Alaska ports; and Whereas it has been the basic policy of our Government since its inception to protect its coastwise trade from invasion by foreign lines whose operating costs are substantially lower than those of American steamship lines, which policy is essential for the protection, maintenance, and upbuilding of the American merchant marine and has been so recognized by numerous acts by the American Congress; and Whereas the proposed amendment of our coastwise laws as provided by the above-mentioned bills would give Canadian rail and steamship lines very substantial competitive advantages over American rail and water lines servicing Alaska and would inevitably result in a diversion of purely American traffic from American lines and American ports to Canadian lines and Canadian ports, and would ultimately result in the withdrawal of American steamship lines from the Alaska coastwise trade; now, therefore Be it resolved: That the port commission of the port of Seattle, having a vital interest in preserving the Alaska coastwise trade to American ports, American rail lines, and American water lines, hereby records its strong opposition to the passage of Senate bills S. 1834 and S. 2092. Adopted by the port commission of the port of Seattle and duly authenticated in open session by the signatures of the commissioners voting in its favor and the seal of the commission this 20th day of April 1948. [SEAL] J. A. EARLEY, E. H. SAVAGE, A. B. TERRY, Port Commissioners of the Port of Seattle. |