AMENDING LAWS RELATING TO NAVIGATION.

MAY 4, 1912.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 23067.]

The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 23067) to amend the laws relating to navigation, submits the following report and recommends that the bill do pass with the following amendments:

Page 1, line 3, strike out the words "from one port" and insert "to or from any port in any State"; line 4, strike out "another port of the United States" and insert "or from any port or place in the Territory of Alaska"; line 5, after the word "in", insert "a vessel or."

Strike out all of the bill after the word "landed" in line 7, page 1. The bill as amended will read as follows:

That no passenger shall be carried by water to or from any port in any State of the United States to or from any port or place in the Territory of Alaska, either directly or by a foreign port, except in a vessel or vessels of the United States, under a penalty of two hundred dollars for each passenger so transported and landed.

The present statute with reference to foreign ships carrying passengers in the coastwise trade reads as follows:

That no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under penalty of two hundred dollars for each passenger so transported and landed.

One of the Federal courts has decided that where foreign "vessels" were used instead of a foreign "vessel" that the law, while violated in spirit, was not violated in letter, and that it being a criminal statute that it should be strictly construed. Taking advantage of this technical defect in the existing law the Canadian Pacific Railway has for several years openly and flagrantly violated the coastwise laws of the United States by carrying passengers from American ports on Puget Sound to American ports of Alaska. This company openly sells through tickets from Seattle to Alaskan ports and from Alaskan ports

H R-62-2-vol 3-54

to Seattle. All that is required of a passenger using one of these tickets is that when he reaches Vancouver or Victoria that he step from one British vessel to another British vessel, which he finds awaiting him at the same wharf. This evasion of the law is so clear and palpable that no one has ever attempted to deny or justify it. The Canadian Pacific Railway vessels, however, have openly declared that they will evade it as long as it remains unamended. The law as to carrying freight formerly read the same as the present law in regard to passengers, and this was evaded in the same way. This part of the statute was then amended so that it was no longer possible. It was not thought at that time that there was any necessity for amending the statute with reference to passengers, as it was not conceived that it would be evaded, but owing to the peculiar geographic situation it has been found both easy and profitable for the Canadian Pacific Railway vessels to take advantage of this letter defect in the law. The Department of Commerce and Labor has repeatedly called attention to this situation and asked that it be remedied by proper legislation Omit folio 5.

O

No.

62D CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ( 2d Session.

REMISSION OF PORTION OF THE CHINESE INDEMNITY.

MAY 4, 1912.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. TOWNSEND, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. J. Res. 137.]

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred H. J. Res. 137, having considered the same, report it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

This resolution completes the measure of justice provided by the act of May 25, 1908, giving adjudication in the Court of Claims to American citizens whose claims upon the Chinese indemnity fund were entitled to a revision by that tribunal.

It also provides for reimbursement to the United States out of that fund of expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of that act. The jurisdiction of the court was restricted to claims that had been presented to the two commissioners who had been appointed to sit in China in 1901-2, to the amounts originally claimed, and to claims filed with the court within one year from the passage of the act. The court was directed to make such awards as should be, in each case, "fully and substantially compensatory." Under this act there were filed with the court 22 claims, the position of which now is: Eleven cases have received judgments amounting to $782,988.74; 11 cases pending, amounting to $31,183.60.

The Chinese indemnity fund was established for "equitable indemnities to the Governments, societies, and individuals who have suffered" from the antiforeign outbreak for which the Chinese Government accepted responsibility. The rule laid down by the representatives of the powers for the administration of the fund for reimbursement was:

Damages shall be assessed as far as possible and in conformity with the above mentioned principles with a view to putting Governments, societies, companies, and private individuals back in the position in which they would have been if the antiforeign movement of 1900 had not taken place.

The awards by the Court of Claims have given effect in equity to that rule. But in securing that adjudication American citizens incurred expenses, through no fault of their own, that would, if not reimbursed out of the fund, make the awards by so much less than "fully and substantially compensatory" as the act of May 25. 1908, declared they must be. Ample precedent in international law exists for the principle of such allowance, as to which the Department of State, writing to this committee under date of February 4, 1911, said: This department sees no objection to the proposed amendment to the joint resolution of May 25, 1908, "providing for the remission of a portion of the Chinese indemnity."

Since the proposed amendment provides for the payment of costs only in the suits in which recoveries have been or may hereafter be had under the joint resolution of May 25, 1908, it seems but just that, since the claimants have been put to this extra expense through no fault of their own, the charge should be borne by the indemnity fund which was demanded from China in part for the payment of such claims.

In defending the fund before the Court of Claims the Department of Justice incurred expense, and the court itself was put to expense for printing. Those expenditures should be repaid from the fund.

Of the $2,000,000 reserved by the act of May 25, 1908, not more than half will be taken even if expenses of the United States and claimants are allowed, leaving 50 per cent to be remitted to China out of the indemnity fund of $24,440,778.81.

The proposal is not new. The resolution was favorably reported in the last Congress by this committee, and was passed by the Senate in that session. The relief so far as claimants are concerned is restricted to those who have been successful, and allowance is not fixed but is placed in the discretion of the court. There is no expenditure of funds belonging to the United States, but compensation to American citizens out of a fund established for their reimbursement for injuries suffered. There should be no surrender of this fund until such compensation is full and substantial and equitable.

EMERGENCY CROPS IN THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY.

MAY 4, 1912.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WICKLIFFE, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 24029.]

The Committee on Agriculture, having had under consideration H. R. 24029, a bill to provide for emergency crops on overflowed lands in the Mississippi Valley, after full hearing and discussion submits the following report:

It has been made clear to the committee that the condition of the agricultural population of this large territory is extremely distressing and deplorable and that the present extraordinary emergency there existing fully warrants the immediate appropriation of the sum carried by this bill.

The Secretary of Agriculture, under date of May 1, 1912, in a letter directed to Senator Burnham, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, says, in part, as follows:

The experts in the Bureau of Plant Industry are of the opinion that there are quite a number of crops which might be put in which would result in bringing money to the farmers in case there were good men on the ground to advise and assist in organizing the work and giving instructions as to how the crops should be put out, grown, handled, and marketed.

The committee therefore recommends that the bill be passed with the following amendments:

Page 1, line 6, strike out the word "south."

Page 1, line 6, strike out the word "by" and strike out line 7 and line 8 to and including the word "industry," and insert "to be expended by the Secretary of Agriculture in."

Page 1, line 9, strike out comma after the word "seed" and insert semicolon; and strike out the words "and all other necessary expenses."

Page 1, line 9, after the word "the," insert the word "temporary." Page 1, line 10, strike out period and insert ", and for the payment of all other necessary expenses during the present emergency.'

O