Statement reflecting number of vessels assigned to the below listed agents at the date indicated, compensation accrued under various service agreements, and net results before and after application of pars. 10 and 11 of General Order No. 12 for the period Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1943 (as reported by the agents)

Statement reflecting number of vessels assigned to the below-listed agents at the date indicated, compensation accrued under variuos service agreements and net results before and after application of sec. 306.96 of General Order No. 34 for the period Jan 1 to Sept. 30, 1944 (as reported by the agents)

715, 381. 02

134, 742. 02 229,900. 45 10,829.91 238, 460. 34

1,063, 933. 61

683, 156. 54

512, 367. 41

170, 789. 13

945, 033.86

698, 240.94

523, 680. 70

174, 560. 24

1,046, 776. 33

680, 337.03

510, 252. 77

170, 084. 26

864, 424. 70

593,633.82

445, 225. 37

148, 408. 45

947, 294. 22

in district court on the theory that he has an insurance contract or whether the action should proceed in the Court of Claims.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Was the court allowance in that one case more or less than the value you had offered?

Mr. RADNER. The courts have not reached the question of value except in the cases of small craft.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I thought you said there was one case?

Mr. RADNER. That was a charter hire case and the decision is published in Document 20A. The court allowed $3 per dead-weight ton per month compared with our rate of $1.25. That was a determination by the court as to fair value for the use of a ship chartered by Navy subcontractors for use during the latter part of 1941 and the early part of 1942.

AGENCY FEES

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You gave us a year ago tables covering agency, cost, and compensation by company, I think. I wonder if you could bring that up to date.

Admiral LAND. Yes; I think we have that. (The statement is as follows:)

Statement reflecting number of vessels assigned to the below listed agents at the date indicated, compensation accrued under various service agreements and net results before and after application of pars. 10 and 11 of General Order No. 12 for the period July 1 to Dec. 31, 1942 (as reported by the agents)

Statement reflecting number of vessels assigned to the below listed agents at the date indicated, compensation accrued under various service agreements, and net results before and after application of pars. 10 and 11 of General Order No. 12 for the period Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1943 (as reported by the agents)

Statement reflecting number of vessels assigned to the below-listed agents at the date indicated, compensation accrued under variuos service agreements and net results before and after application of sec. 306.96 of General Order No. 34 for the period Jan 1 to Sept. 30, 1944 (as reported by the agents)

Statement reflecting number of vessels assigned to the below-listed agents at the date indicated, compensation accrued under various service agreements and net results before and after application of sec. 306.96 of General Order No. 34 for the period Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 1944 (as reported by the agents)-Continued.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You spoke a little this morning about recapture and renegotiation. The over-all figure you gave was $20,000,000 for both. I assume there have been no further results in reference to the Red Sea charters?

Admiral LAND. They are still in the courts.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Only two companies have paid up?

Admiral LAND. Yes; only two. As far as Red Sea profits are concerned, I have felt for some time that they were excessive. The owners still maintain that the profits, however large, were not excessive because the basic rates were no higher than those earned from commercial operations in other trade routes in 1941. We have been trying for the past year, without great success, to achieve adjustments by renegotiation. The owners contend that the renegotiation law is not applicable to these charters principally on the ground that the renegotiation law of 1942 does not apply to contracts made with the British Government agencies, even though they were financed under lendlease and various other asserted ambiguities in the renegotiation law. From present indications, these questions ultimately will have to be resolved by the courts. We feel that the courts will ultimately sustain the soundness of our legal position. The Renegotiation Act of 1943 was originally enacted as the Sixth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act of 1942, in section 403, and the questions therefore may be of some concern to this committee.

In view of the committee's interest in the matter, I hope the committee will consider whether or not further assistance is required in the

form of clarifying amendments to the law. In our opinion, the law as presently written, supports the position taken by us in attempting to renegotiate. If the committee feels differently, an opportunity would be presented by this appropriation to enact a clarifying amendment to the Appropriation Act of 1942.

There is about a 5 percent chance that the Red Sea controversy can be settled amicably, but I am not hopeful. Of course if the courts sustain injunction proceedings instituted against renegotiation, we will be completely stymied.

PROFITS ALLOWED AFTER RENEGOTIATION

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is there any average figure you can give for profits allowed after renegotiation?

Admiral LAND. Oh, I would not like to guess at an average figure, but I would say it is roughly, from the W. S. A., around 7 or 8 percent, maybe only 6. I do not know; it depends altogether on the character of the work performed.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Seven or eight percent after renegotiation? Admiral LAND. We allow-yes, after renegotiation we allow something like that. I could give you a fairly accurate estimate; I would rather not give you a guess.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Will you put an average figure in the record? Admiral LAND. Yes. Do you mean all contracts or just service contracts?

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. All the contracts that have been renegotiated. Is that on turn-over, and so forth, 7 or 8 percent?

Admiral LAND. No, that is after renegotiation.

(The information requested is found in the telegraphic report from the Chairman of the Price Adjustment Board, inserted on p. 402 in response to the chairman's inquiry.)

Mr. TABER. Is it on the investment or the turn-over?

Admiral LAND. It is on the business done.

Mr. TABER. It is on the gross?

Admiral LAND. Yes.

Mr. CASE. What would that be? On their invested capital? Admiral LAND. I could not answer that question, because we deal with a great many small concerns.

Mr. TABER. Four hundred or five hundred percent, maybe?

Admiral LAND. That may be true of a small concern in the repair business; it would not be true of a large concern. Most of these contracts are repair contracts, service contracts, stevedoring contracts, and things like that, in which the capital invested in the business is mostly of the arm and hammer brand. It is the number of men doing the work. It is not something you can analyze on capital invested units and get any value out of it. It was also indicated this morning that the major companies are being renegotiated by the Navy, so it does not come under W. S. A.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. This renegotiation is wholly separate from the Maritime Commission renegotiation?

Admiral LAND. Oh, yes, entirely separate.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Two separate bodies?

Admiral LAND. Yes.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You said this morning that you thought the W. S. A. job had been pretty well done?