East. In view of the large number of vessels built or purchased by American citizens in other countries and exclusively employed in legitimate traffic between foreign ports under the recognized protection of our flag, it might be well to provide a uniform rule for their registration and documentation, so that the bona fide property rights of our citizens therein shall be duly evidenced and properly guarded.

The reasons in support of that recommendation are stronger now than when it was made. Our relations with the East have greatly changed. Sections 4133 and 4134 of the Revised Statutes, which prohibited American residents abroad from owning American vessels, were repealed by the act of March 3, 1897. During fifteen years American commercial interests abroad have grown rapidly. The right of American citizens abroad to acquire property in foreign-built ships has been held to be a national right, and the practice of carrying the flag by such vessels is established. Most maritime nations have laws for the issue of provisional registers to vessels purchased by their citizens or subjects resident abroad. There is no law on the subject for citizens of the United States. The practice has been to file bills of sale with our consuls abroad, and to issue a consular certificate certifying to the filing of the bill of sale. If it shall appear advisable at this time to carry out the recommendation of the President's message of 1884 a bill upon the subject will be submitted.

CUBAN VESSELS.

The inhabitants of Cuba, at the close of the war with Spain, owned a considerable tonnage, which had been navigated under the Spanish flag in the coasting trade of the island and in trade with foreign ports in the West Indies and on the adjacent mainland. After American occupation on January 1, 1899, the majority of these owners did not desire to continue their vessels under the Spanish flag, and there was no Cuban flag representing a government which had obtained the recognition of nations. The resolution of Congress declaring the independence of the people of Cuba was, in effect, a prohibition of the exclusive use of the American flag on such vessels. The Bureau was instructed to submit regulations to meet this unusual situation, and these regulations (Appendix J) were prepared in time to be issued almost simultaneously with complete military occupation. A distinctive signal, consisting of a blue flag with a white union-the colors adopted by most of the countries of Central and South America which have declared their independence of Spain-was prescribed for Cuban vessels whose owners should abjure their allegiance to Spain or other foreign powers. Subsequently, at the earnest request of representative Cuban shipowners, such vessels, on application, were authorized to carry the American flag over this distinctive signal solely for the purpose of indicating that the Government of the United States, pursuant to treaty, has assumed and will discharge the obligations that may, under international law, result from the fact of the occupation of Cuba for the protection of life and property. The use of the American flag did not guarantee to these vessels in ports of the United States, or in foreign ports, the privileges which are granted to American vessels. Even in ports of the United States sections 4219 and 4225 of the Revised Statutes have left no discretion in executive officers in the imposition of tonnage taxes of $1 a ton in addition to the regular tax of 3 cents, imposed usually on vessels from Cuba belonging to nations in treaty with the United States.

The situation can be remedied for the future by an act of Congress providing that during the occupation of the island Cuban vessels shall

receive in the United States the treatment accorded to vessels of the most favored nation. Such a bill may be found in Appendix A, and its early passage is recommended in justice to ourselves as well as to the Cubans. The laws referred to have virtually prohibited Cuban vessels from entering ports of the United States, but in the occasional cases where they have entered the additional $1 tax has been imposed. The refund of these additional charges will require legislation, and it seems just that a relief bill should be passed.

REGISTRY OF VESSELS BOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Before, during, and since the war with Spain the War and Navy Departments purchased a large tonnage of foreign-built vessels to serve as transports, colliers, hospital and supply ships. A list of such vessels owned by those Departments on June 30, 1899, aggregating about 125,000 tons, is printed in Appendix G.

Section 4132 of the Revised Statutes authorizes the registry of foreignbuilt vessels captured and condemned as prizes during war or forfeited for violations of law. It expressly prohibits the registry of other foreignbuilt vessels. Foreign-built vessels purchased by the Government are not entitled to registry. The Bureau decided this question in a circular (S. 19859) published August 12, 1898. Subsequently the Navy Department sold the collier Scipio to an American citizen, who desired to put the vessel in the coasting trade of the United States. At the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the question whether the vessel could be documented was submitted to the Department of Justice. The AttorneyGeneral, in an opinion published in Appendix G, sustained the decision of the Bureau that the vessel was not entitled to be documented as a vessel of the United States.

From time to time the Departments which purchased these vessels because there were no American vessels available for the purpose, will doubtless desire to dispose of them. The price for which they can be sold will be considerably greater if by legislation the vessels can engage in the coasting trade of the United States. Whether such legislation is desirable, whether, if desirable, it should take the form of an amendment to section 4132 of the Revised Statutes providing that foreign-built vessels purchased by the Government upon sale to American citizens shall be entitled to be documented as vessels of the United States, or whether that privilege should be restricted to the specific vessels recently purchased, are matters on which the judgment of the two Departments directly concerned will doubtless be consulted by Congress.

Whatever legislation may be deemed desirable to meet the situation, the wants which created it furnish cogent reasons in support of legislation to establish a merchant marine. No nation of the first rank except the United States is dependent upon the purchase of foreign vessels for the transportation of its troops by sea.

Our condition is the precise reverse of that of Great Britain, which has recently chartered a number of British steamships in the transAtlantic trade to transport troops to South Africa, with the result that American exporters, dependent upon British shipping, have been compelled to pay increased ocean freights.

REPORTS OF SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS.

There are now in operation United States shipping commissioners' offices at eighteen of the principal seaports of the United States. The office at Rockport was abolished on July 31, 1899, and in lieu of it an

office was established at Belfast, Me., in conformity with law. The details of the routine work performed by these offices are tabulated in Appendix B. Those figures do not, however, show the full amount of work performed, as some of the commissioners, especially at New York and San Francisco, have shipped crews for army transports and naval colliers not included in the official returns and for which they received no compensation. The act of December 21, 1898, which materially changed the law in regard to seamen, has added greatly to the duties of the commissioners since February 20, when the act went into effect, and it is due to the tact and industry of those officers that radical changes in the law have been effected with much less friction than was feared.

Furthermore, while the volume of work has been greater, the total expenditures for the shipping commissioners' service and the average expenditure per man for whom services have been rendered have been the lowest for the past six fiscal years, as is shown by the following table:

To the number of seamen shipped, etc., for 1899 should be added those for transports, amounting at New York to 7,486, and at San Francisco to 6,332, while no corresponding addiion to the expense column is to be made.

Not only is the administration of these offices from a fiscal point of view satisfactory, but, what is of even greater consequence, there is an increasing tendency on the part of owners, masters, and seamen to refer to the arbitration of the commissioners those disputes which seem to be inseparable from labor at sea. The settlement of such disputes is one of the useful functions of the commissioners, and appeal to them should in the great majority of cases render unnecessary expensive litigation.

It has been the aim of the Bureau to secure offices for the commissioners in Government buildings wherever practicable. In conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the act of Congress, an appropriation of $9,000 has again been recommended for insertion in this year's estimates for the payment of the rent where Government accommodations can not be found, and for necessary expenses of the offices of shipping commissioners.

ACT OF DECEMBER 21, 1898.

In your last annual report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated December 6, 1898, you said: "Legislation for the benefit of American seamen now holds a place in Congress favorable to early action." The bill referred to was the first to pass at the last session of Congress and was approved by the President on December 21, 1898. That act is the most comprehensive measure ever passed in this coun

try for the benefit of seamen. It is probably within bounds to assert that no parliamentary body ever before adopted legislation which has worked so radical a change in the historical relations between the seaman and the master or owner. So far as the Bureau is aware the act of December 21, 1898, is the first application of the usual law of civil contracts for labor to the agreement between seamen and masters and owners. The essential provision of that act gives to the seaman the right to quit work in the domestic and near-by foreign trade, subject to no penalties of consequence, except suit for breach of contract, which, of course, will never be brought. So late as January 25, 1897, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Arago case, decided that from the earliest historical period the contract of the sailor is an exceptional one, involving to a certain extent the surrender of his personal liberty during the life of the contract. The operation of this American law, radically changing the historical seaman's agreement, is of great importance to those who follow the sea for a livelihood, under whatever flag they sail. If there shall be a growth of the American merchant marine, it is to be presumed that other nations will in time accept the new principle established by our legislation. On the other hand, if we shall remain stationary or shall progress only at the end of the line of nations that are developing their mercantile navies, we may rest assured that other nations will not look to this country for examples to be imitated in legislation. The act went into effect on February 20, 1899, and too short a time has since elapsed to permit the formation of a correct judgment of its operations. The reports of shipping commissioners (Appendix B) on four months of the operation of the act show varying opinions.

The law in regard to the allotments of wages to seamen has been reduced to a more satisfactory form than hitherto, and if it is not thoroughly enforced the fault will rest with this office and with executive officers, and not, as hitherto, with inadequate statutes.

Under the power vested in this office by the act of December 21, 1898, regulations making considerable reductions in the amount of allotments have been framed (Appendix B), and in the main have operated successfully. Thus the shipping commissioner at San Francisco reports:

The change in the allotment law is an excellent one and has done more to protect the seaman from the extortion of the boarding-house keepers and shipping masters than any act of recent years.

And the shipping commissioner at New York states:

Never before in the same space of time have so many seamen left this port from whose prospective earnings so little money was deducted.

At the outset a determined effort to break down the law and to continue the old abuses was made by those who had profited by them, especially at New York, but this effort was thwarted by the shipping commissioner at that port with the cooperation of American shipowners. The law is now enforced, so far as this Bureau is advised, at our principal seaports to the advantage of seamen and without detriment to shipowners.

The law in regard to allotments was made applicable by Congress to foreign as well as to American vessels, except where treaties stipulate to the contrary. As about 60 per cent of our carrying is done in British vessels the allotment law applies much more frequently to British than to American vessels. Its enforcement rests with the British consuls before whom seamen for British vessels are shipped. The act has been subject to severe criticism in British shipping circles, but in the

judgment of the Bureau the criticism has shown the propriety of the act. The following clear statement of the grounds of the criticism is taken from "Fairplay” (May 11, 1899):

Since the United States law limiting the advance granted to sailors to one month's pay went into effect on the 20th of February last, British shipowners have been compelled to reduce sailors' wages £1 per month and pay a bonus of from $15 to $25 for each man in order to secure a crew. Under the rate prevailing prior to this enactinent, namely, £4 per month, the seaman received an advance of two months' wages, which went into the hands of the boarding masters. Comparing results we have:

which practically leaves matters in statu quo ante as regards the three parties mostly concerned-the owner, the shipping master, and the sailor.

In point of fact, the tables demonstrate the abuse of the old allotment system. The reduction of £1 by shipowners in British seamen's wages is to pay the £5 demanded by the shipping agent or boardinghouse keeper. The claim formerly made that the advance was to pay debts incurred by the seaman and properly deducted from his wages disappears, and the fact is disclosed that much of this deduction was in fact a payment by the owner's representative to the shipping agent or boarding house keeper for supplying the crew.

In some instances British seamen have been shipped at the rate of 1s. a month, the balance of the wages, about £3 or £4, being paid by the owner's representative to the boarding-house keeper or shipping agent. This system, which is an obvious evasion of the law, is not tolerated on American vessels. Through the proper channels the matter has been brought to the attention of the British authorities. Several lesser British courts, corresponding to our police courts, have held that a contract for 1s. a month (25 cents) is a valid contract. The decisions of American courts compel the belief that in this country such a contract would be set aside às inequitable and invalid, and the hope is entertained that on appeal the higher British courts will take the same view. The views of British consuls on the methods of shipping seamen in the United States on British vessels, reported to the Board of Trade, are published in Appendix M.

DISCRIMINATION IN PILOTAGE AGAINST SAILING VESSELS.

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 anyone. 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