Senator TOWNSEND. It is probably true, is it not, that if the Government should divorce your boats from your railroad company you would not be able to carry in competition by railroad with those boats which are owned by the independents, or would not after you had sold them?

Mr. BUCKLAND. I can not quite answer that question, Senator. I do not know just what it involves. I should think we would make a very strong effort to keep on our rail lines and get the longer haul upon all the traffic we get. I think it has been the policy of the Government to give every railroad company the long haul on goods originating on its own line, inasmuch as the general rates of the railroad are fixed upon the basis of revenue obtained from the long haul.

Senator TOWNSEND. What I was trying to get at directly was, if all of the boats that you own were owned independently of the railroad company and operated independently of them, would you be able to carry any considerable portion of that business by your rail lines to New York?

Mr. BUCKLAND. Yes, I think we would, and for this reason: In round numbers about 95 per cent of our eastbound movements is loaded cars and about 5 per cent empty cars. About 45 per cent of our westbound movements is loaded cars and 55 per cent empty I believe that we could in competition with any line put the commodities in those empty cars which are traveling home anyway, and carry them home to New York; but I do not believe that the shippers would get such a good service.

cars.

Senator TOWNSEND. But your terminal facilities in New York would not be as good as you now have, or as the boat lines would then have?

Mr. BUCKLAND. No, sir.

Senator TOWNSEND. Would not that operate to prevent your carrying?

Mr. BUCKLAND. Yes, sir; it would have that tendency.

Senator TOWNSEND. The shipper, of course, with the lower rate that would be furnished possibly by the independent line would get

the benefit?

Mr. BUCKLAND. Naturally; but the independent line fixes the rate to-day.

Senator TOWNSEND. I can see where he could do that if he had equal dock facilities with you, but if he does not have those-— Senator JOHNSON. Through bills of lading.

Senator TOWNSEND. I am much obliged to you, because I wanted to ask about that. Does your through bill of lading contemplate a guarantee of the transportation after it gets here, gets on the boats? Mr. BUCKLAND. Do you mean marine insurance?

Senator TOWNSEND. Yes.

Mr. BUCKLAND. Oh, yes; my impression is that for 72 hours after storage in the wharves and docks

Senator TOWNSEND. One witness testified here the other day that that only extended through the port and did not affect the shipment after it got into the port.

Mr. BUCKLAND. Who testified to that?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Turner, of Mobile, Ala., as to the situation down there.

Mr. BUCKLAND. I will file, if you like, a copy of our standard bill of lading, which will show what it does cover.

The CHAIRMAN. We should like to have that, as Mr. Turner has sent us one of his bills of lading.

The paper submitted is as follows:

Uniform bill of lading-Standard form of straight bill of lading approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission by Order No. 787 of June 27, 1908.)

THE NEW ENGLAND NAVIGATION CO.

Straight bill of lading—Original—Not negotiable.

Shippers No.

Agents No.

Received, subject to the classifications and tariffs in effect on the date of issue of this original bill of lading, at ——, 191, from the property described below, in apparent good order, except as noted (contents and condition of contents of packages unknown), marked, consigned, and destined as indicated below, which said company agrees to carry to its usual place of delivery at said destination, if on its road, otherwise to deliver to another carrier on the route to said destination. It is mutually agreed, as to each carrier of all or any of said property, over all or any portion of said route to destination, and as to each party at any time interested in all or any of said property, that every service to be performed hereunder shall be subject to all the conditions, whether printed or written, herein contained (including conditions on back hereof), and which are agreed to by the shipper and accepted for himself and his assigns.

(The property herein described, while water borne on vessels of The New England Navigation Co., is insured by such company against fire and marine risks. The insurance covers for 72 hours after landed from such vessel unless sooner delivered to owner, consignee, or some connecting line, and if a Sunday or holiday intervenes, during such Sunday or holiday also.)

is in cents per 100 pounds.

(This bill of lading is to be signed by the shipper and agent of the carrier issuing same.)

Agent.

Senator TOWNSEND. Mr. Schwerin called my attention to the fact that Mr. Turner said that was in foreign business rather than in local business.

Mr. BUCKLAND. My impression is that we carry marine insurance on all our cargoes.

Mr. SCHWERIN. The steamship lines in competition with the railroads give practically a bill of lading which assumes that the line is liable for the loss of goods.

Senator TOWNSEND. Could a railroad company in safety issue a bill of lading insuring the shipment if part of the transportation was to be made over, say, a tramp steamboat, or an independent boat with which it had no relations?

Mr. BUCKLAND. That is a traffic question which I can not answer. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buckland, can you leave that map with us? Mr. BUCKLAND. Yes; with pleasure. Before closing there is one thing I wish to say. I mentioned the fact that our Fall River Line steamers, the six principal steamers, cost us an average of a million dollars apiece, and that the Commonwealth cost us $1,800,000. If we were required to sell that line, which has a reputation of its own all over the world for service, I do not believe that there is any independent concern that could afford to buy it and run it as we have run it. I say that, perhaps, with a little pride, because I think anybody who has been on the Fall River Line knows how it has been run, and I do not believe any independent line could afford to buy and run those steamers.

Senator O'GORMAN. Is it a money maker?

Mr. BUCKLAND. Yes; the Fall River Line alone earns us perhaps 6 per cent; not over that.

The CHAIRMAN. The average, as I understand you, of all the steamboats of your company is 34 per cent?

Mr. BUCKLAND. Three and one-half per cent; but the Fall River Line is the best payer of the lot because it has a reputation which has been built up for a great many years, and it takes a very large summer passenger traffic. I think that that portion of section 11 to which I have referred, if enacted into law, the effect would simply be to tie up the Commonwealth, the Priscilla, the Providence, the Plymouth, and the Pilgrim at their docks, because I do not think any other concern could afford to take them up.

Before closing, if it becomes desirable, I should like to reserve the right to address the committee on the question of railroad ownership of ships going through the canal. I have not spoken about that today because I have not any great interest in it this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. If the House bill goes through with that provision in it, there will be opportunity for you to appear before the committee. Mr. BUCKLAND. I should like to say a word about our dock frontage in the city of Bridgeport. Those of you who have been at Bridgeport will realize that our rails parallel the water front the entire distance, with the natural consequence that we monopolize the entire water front at Bridgeport. The city of Bridgeport asked us if we would sell any portion of the water front. We told them we would sell any portion they wished. That is in our correspondence with the mayor. We offered them any portion of the water front they might desire at a price to be fixed by three real estate agents in Bridgeport, one to be selected by them, one by ourselves,

and the other selected by the two if the first two could not agree. I say this because in the report of the Commissioner of Corporations the statement is made that the New Haven road is monopolizing the water front in the city of Bridgeport. That offer has not been accepted, and it is still open whenever the city of Bridgeport wishes to accept it.

The committee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, May 10, 1912, at 10 o'clock a. m.

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1912.

COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS,
UNITED STATES SENATE,

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m.

Washington, D. C.

Present: Senators Bristow (acting chairman), Perkins, Page, Townsend, Simmons, Johnston, Chilton, and O'Gorman.

Senator BRISTOW. The committee will come to order.

Senator JOHNSTON. I wish to introduce a letter from Mr. Horace Turner, in reference to the decision of the Supreme Court, and I ask that it be inserted in the record.

Mr. BRISTOW. It will be inserted.

The letter is as follows:

Senator JOSEPH F. JOHNSTON,

Washington, D. C.

TURNER HARTWELL DOCKS Co.,
Mobile, Ala., May 3, 1912.

MY DEAR SENATOR: At the time I was before the Committee on Interoceanic Canals and before the Committee on Interstate Commerce Commission the question was asked as to whether or not the Government could legally compel owners of wharf property, no matter by whom owned, to throw same open to the entire public alike; in other words, make wharves a public instead of a private property. I stated that I believed the Government could, while Senator Brandegee took the opposite position. I would like very much to call the attention of the committee to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. This terminal property was owned by certain railroads operating into it, and this terminal association controlled the bridges crossing the river from East St. Louis to St. Louis. The court held that this property was a public necessity and that the use of these terminals must be given to other railroads, in addition to those now operating into the terminals, even though these other railroads did not own or buy stock in the terminals. This case, it would seem to the writer, absolutely sustains his contention that where the wharf property is necessary for interstate commerce it should be regulated by the Government and be public in its nature. In the case of wharf property there is an additional reason for its being declared public property, which reason does not exist in the case of the terminal association at St. Louis, viz: Wharf property is the link between the common carrier on land and the free waterways and channels owned and improved by the Federal Government, whereas the Terminal Railroad Association property was simply a link connecting a number of common carriers, and the latter felt they could refuse this link to competing common carriers. Our water front is therefore either a barrier or fence to be used against interstate commerce when its use is restricted by railroads or private individuals for their private purposes only, or this very property is the gateway through which goods can flow from the common carriers on land to vessels of all nations using the channels furnished by the Government from the ports to the sea.

If this question comes up again I would appreciate your bringing this Terminal Railroad case to the attention of the committee.

In my opinion legislation over the control of water terminals will be one of the largest issues in the United States very shortly. As soon as the public generally understand that water terminals are used by the railroads to restrict competition on the waterways they will clamor for a quick remedy.

Very truly,

HORACE TURNER.

STATEMENT OF MR. JACOB ROBINSON ANDREWS, BATH, ME., PRESIDENT OF THE HYDE WINDLASS CO.

Senator JOHNSTON. What business have you engaged in?

Mr. ANDREWS. Building deck machinery of all descriptions for ships. We build windlasses, deck winches, capstans, steering gear. We have built nearly all of the windlasses and steering gear, etc., for the principal ships that have been built in this country for the last 10 or 15 years. That is, a large proportion for the important ships, such as the ships which our Navy and the Argentine Republic are building. Of course, a large portion of our work is for the Navy Department.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you build any for the Fore River Shipbuilding Co. ?

Mr. ANDREWS. We build a great part of their work. We build for the New York Shipbuilding Co., the Newport News Co., the Bath Iron Works, Harlan & Hollingsworth, the Maryland Steel Co., and, in fact, for nearly all the steel-ship builders as well as for the woodenship builders in our local district.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Andrews, you may make any statement you desire to the committee.

Mr. ANDREWS. I simply desire to urge the importance, from the standpoint of our company, of eliminating that clause in section 11, of House bill 21969.

Senator JOHNSTON. Yes; we understand that.

Mr. ANDREWS. We feel that the passage of the bill in its present form would be very disastrous to our business, as, from past experience we feel

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you have any competition with foreign constructors of this class of machinery you build?

Mr. ANDREWS. We do. In fact we can not compete with foreign

makers.

Senator JOHNSTON. You can not compete with them at all?
Mr. ANDREWS. No, sir; we have competed-

Senator PERKINS. You have a great many patents, have you not? Mr. ANDREWS. We have a great many patents, but the foreign makers of the same class of machinery have patents which seem to cover the purpose to a certain extent. A number of the large ships that have been built abroad for American companies have used our material in preference to the foreign-built because they liked it better, and they have been willing to give us a preference of about 10 per cent in price. With that consideration we were only able to build it at just about its actual cost. We could not make any money on it, but as a matter of business we decided that it was better to take work even if we could not make very much, because if we could get out at cost it reduced our fixed charges just so much on the other work. In other words, it was sort of a surplus business that we could take, that we could not otherwise have had.

Senator JOHNSTON. You do not export any?

Mr. ANDREWs. We have not since the last work that we have exported is for some ships that the Standard Oil Co. built abroad for their foreign trade. We built the machinery for Mr. Griscom at the time he was at the head of the International Navigation Co., which afterwards was merged into the International Mercantile Marine. We