AFTER RECESS The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. STATEMENT OF IRA A. CAMPBELL, REPRESENTING AMERICAN Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Ira A. Campbell. I am counsel for and appear for the American Steamship Owners' Association. For the information of the committee, that association is comprised of the owners of American steamships. We have about 80 companies who own about 42 million tons of shipipng. The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if you would object, later, to giving the stenographer, for insertion in the record, a list of the companies you represent? Mr. CAMPBELL. I will be glad to. (The list follows:) LIST OF MEMBER COMPANIES OF THE AMERICAN STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION Alaska Steamship Co., Seattle, Wash. American Line Steamship Corporation, 1 Broadway, New York, N. Y. American South African Line, Inc., 26 Beaver Street, New York, N. Y. Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies Steamship Lines, foot of Wall Street, New York, N. Y. Black Diamond Steamship Corporation, 39 Broadway, New York, N. Y. A. H. Bull Steamship Co., 115 Broad Street, New York, N. Y. Cities Service Transportation Co., 60 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. Colombian Steamship Co., Inc., 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y. Colonial Navigation Co., Pier 11, North River, New York, N. Y. Dollar Steamship Lines Inc., Ltd., 311 California Street, San Francisco, Calif. Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc., India Wharf, Boston, Mass. Grace Line, Inc., 10 Hanover Square, New York, N. Y. Gulf Pacific Mail Line, Ltd., 620 Matson Building, San Francisco, Calif. Gulf Refining Co., 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y. H. N. Hartwell & Son, Inc., Atlantic National Bank Building, Post Office Square, Boston, Mass. Hudson River Steamboat Co., Inc., Pier 39 North River, New York, N. Y. International Freighting Corporation, Inc., 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y. Isthmian Steamship Co., 71 Broadway, New York, N. Y. Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc., 120 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. Lykes Bros. Ripley Steamship Co., Inc., 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y. Malacca Steamship Co., Inc., 11 Broadway, New York, N. Y. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co, foot of Wall Street, New York, N. Y. The New York & Puerto Rico Steamshup Co., foot of Wall Street, New York, NY Newark Terminal & Transportation Co., foot of Madison Street, Newark, N J Noflk & Washington, D C., Steamboat Co., Seventh Street Wharves, ngton, D. C. Ore Steamship Corporation, 25 Broadway, New York, N. Y. The Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., 117 Laura Street, Jacksonville. Pennsylvania Shipping Co., 260 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Nature Transportation Co., Ine, Port Arthur, Tex. bestrain Lines, Ine., 39 Broadway, New York, NY. Seminole Co., Ine, 11 Broadway, New York, N. Y. Sinclair Navigation Co., 45 Nassau Street, New York, N. Y veory-Vacuum Oil Co, Inc., 26 Broadway, New York, N. Y. a). Atlantic Steamship Co., Savannah, Ga. thru Steamship Co., Broad Street Station Building, Philadelphia, Pa. CH. Sprague & Son, Inc., 33 Broad Street, Boston 9, Mass. Standard Oil Co. of California, Standard Oil Building, San Francisco, Calif. Standard Stapping Co, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N. Y. Starin New Haven Lane, Pier 13, North River, New York, N. Y. *.n Oil Co, 160% Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Sword Steamship Line, Inc., 90 Broad Street, New York, N. Y. The Texas Co., 135 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. Y. Tie Water Associated Transport Corporation, 17 Battery Place, New York, NY M & J Tracy, Inc. 1 Broadway, New York, N. Y. Union Oil Co. of California, Union Oil Building, Los Angeles, Calif. The Union Sulphur Co., 33 Rector Street, New York, N. Y. United Fruit Co., 1 Federal Street, Boston, Mass. United States Lines Co., Inc., 1 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 18 Tank Ship Corporation, 122 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. Y. Wiams Steamship Corporation, 90 Broad Street, New York, N. Y. Wilson Line, Inc., Fourth Street Wharf, Wilmington, Del. Mr. WEARIN. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Did you want to ask Mr. Campbell anything? Mr. WEARIN. Yes. I wanted to ask Mr. Campbell whether he is s member of the law firm of Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann. Mr. CAMPBELL. I am; yes, sir. Mr. WEARIN. Is it not true that your law firm has represented or Dow represents or you personally have represented or now represent the interests of the International Mercantile Marine Co., including the United States Lines, the Baltimore Mail Line, and the Panama Pacific? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. Mr. WEARIN. All of whom received $15,441,076 so-called "mail" pay to June 30, 1934? Mr. CAMPBELL. I cannot say how much mail pay they have received; but they have received mail pay. Mr. WEARIN. Is that approximately the amount? Mr. CAMPBELL. I would not want to place any figure on it. Mr. WEARIN. I think that is the figure which was brought out at Senator Black's hearing. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. Mr. WEARIN. Is it not true that the bill that was introduced yesterday, a copy of which was presented by you to the Senate Committee on Commerce yesterday, with the statement that it was approved by you and those interests represented by you, provides that the present holder of any mail contract dissatisfied with an amount determined by the President as just compensation therefor, may sue the United States "in any district court of the United States in which the holder of the contract resides or has its principal place of business?" Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. Mr. WEARIN. So I gather that, if the proposed subsidy under the new system does not satisfy your clients, they may sue a benevolent Santa Claus for over $50,000,000, on their own home grounds, and possibly knock him for a goal? Mr. CAMPBELL. No. I do not subscribe to the suggestion that Uncle Sam or the United States is a Santa Claus. I hope it is not. Certainly I do not want to be a party to making my Government a Santa Claus; and I do not think the Congressman intends to be. Mr. WEARIN. No; I do not. Mr. CAMPBELL. I did not think so. Mr. WEARIN. Considering the amount of mail pay that these companies have received, though, one might readily determine that to be the case. Mr. CAMPBELL. Not at all. It is going to be rather difficult for me to start on a statement, in discussing some particular feature of that bill, in the way you have indicated. The CHAIRMAN. That is the section usually provided for suits against the United States, is it not, giving the district courts jurisdiction-and the circuit courts and the Court of Claims? Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the Congressman repeat the question to me, just what you said? Mr. WEARIN. Certainly. I wanted to know whether or not it is not true that this bill provides that the present holder of any mail contract dissatisfied with an amount determined by the President as just compensation therefor may sue the United States in any district court of the United States in which the holder of the contract resides or has his principal place of business. The CHAIRMAN. That is not in it, so far as I can recall. Is that in this bill, except that it is under paragraph 20 of section 41 and section 250 of title 28 of the United States Code, which is applicable to everybody else? Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. Chairman, he is referring to the bill The CHAIRMAN. To page 10? Mr. CAMPBELL. He is referring to the bill which I discussed in the Senate committee yesterday. Mr. WEARIN. That is right. Mr. CAMPBELL. He is referring to the bill I discussed before the Senate Committee on Commerce yesterday, to which we offered certain amendments. One of the amendments that was offered by the association was that this right of suit should be given to the holder of the mail contract, to sue "in any district court of the United States in which the holder resides or has its principal place of business." The CHAIRMAN. That is a suggestion you are making here? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, exactly. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. CAMPBELL. He is asking me if I did not make that suggestion yesterday. The CHAIRMAN I thought that he had reference to the bill and I could not remember anything of that kind in this bill. That was the usal suit provision? Mr WEARIN. That is the suggestion you made yesterday to the Senate committee? Mr. CAMPBELL. That is, the association submitted that suggestion to the Senate committee. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, he can make any suggestion he wants. Mr. CAMPBELL. I am going to renew the suggestion in a few moments, if I have the opportunity. Mr WEARIN. That makes it possible for the holder of any mail contract who may be dissatisfied with the amount determined by the President as just compensation therefor, to sue, if they do not think they have received the proper amount of subsidy? The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, I wish to clarify the atmosphere by saying that the bill, as we are introducing it, follows identienly, in that provision, the language of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1934, which gives the President the right to odify or cancel any contract; and it says: Whenever the President shall modify or cancel any such contract, he shall determine just compensation therefor; and if the amount thereof, so determined by the President, is unsatisfactory to the individual, firm, or corporation entitled to receive the same, such individual, firm, or corporation shall be entitled to receive suc), portion thereof as the President shall determine and shall be entitled toase the United States to recover such further sum as, added to said portion so pere ved, will make up such amount as will be just compensation therefor, in the marrer provided for by paragraph 20 of section 41 and section 250 of title 28 of the United States Code. And that followed the identical language of the act which had already passed and was the law. Mr. SIROVICH. In other words, the law of the past provided that the President might modify or cancel any existing contract, between any organization representing any merchant marine; and these people felt that they had been deprived of their due process of law, by abrogation of their contract, and that it would give them the right to go into a court of justice, to recover what they lost. Is that right? The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. WEARIN. Or if they desired more subsidy. Mr. SIROVICH. It did not say more subsidy. It provided that he could determine what their loss might be by the cancelation of the contract. In other words, the company might have invested millions of dollars in the ship, in good faith, and got a contract for 10 years; and, after 1 year, that contract is rescinded; and it leaves the owner of the company that owns that ship in the position of going bankrupt, unless some equitable arrangement would be made to compensate him for the loss sustained by reason of cancelation of his contract. Mr. WEARIN. Had been rescinded for cause. Mr. SIROVICH. That is what they have got to prove in court. Mr. CAMPBELL. Before I start my statement, I desire to hand to the gentlemen of the committee copies of the amendments which we suggest to this bill. In that way you can follow the suggestions. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will pass those amendments around. Mr. CAMPBELL. These are mimeographed copies of the Senate bill, S. 2582; but they contain the amendments also. I think, Mr. Chairman, that I should add, for the benefit of the Congressman, the statement that we not only represent the United States Lines and the I. M. M., and these other companies he enumerated, but many other American steamship companies, as attorneys for them, so that you will not be under any misapprehension as to that. The CHAIRMAN. It is no disgrace to represent anybody. Of course, it is fair to this committee that the committee shall know whom you represent. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; absolutely. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as I said before, I appear on behalf of the American Steamship Owners' Association, whose members own and operate some 41⁄2 million tons of American shipping. We have, as an association, given the most serious and earnest consideration to this measure that has been possible. We have spent many days and nights reviewing it and discussing it and trying to understand its meaning, to vision, as well as we could, into the future, as to what its effect would be upon American shipping. The shipowners regard this as probably the most important measure affecting shipping which has come before the American Congress, because, if it is enacted into law, it will mean either the success or the failure of this country having a privately owned American merchant marine. We know that this committee is inspired by the high purpose of trying to enact legislation which will give America a successful, privately owned merchant marine. We join with you in that purpose and we express the hope that we may be able, in some way, to contribute something which will aid in the accomplishment of it. There are many changes which we are going to suggest to the bill, some of a minor character and some of greater importance. We are suggesting no radical change in the theory of the legislation. We are trying, in the light of shipping experience, to make the bill the best bill that we can, to accomplish the purpose to which it is directed. In the functioning of our association we endeavor to bring the members as close to unanimity of view as possible upon such measures as these, but we do not attempt to bind a minority, or even one dissenting member, from complete freedom to dissent and express his views as he may please to do so. When we find ourselves not in substantial accord but, on the whole, pretty evenly divided on some particular question, it has been the uniform policy of the association to withhold expression officially by the association, leaving the members of the association free to take whatever course they may see fit. There are some provisions in this bill, particularly those pertaining to the exercise of regulatory powers, upon which there has been a very marked division of opinion. Some of the members of the association favor this bill placing regulatory powers under this new United States Maritime Authority. Others favor placing the regulatory |