The sun., 1915-06-15
THE SEAMEN'S LAW.
A Defence and Explanation Of Its
Provisions by Andrew Furuseth.

To THE EpiroR or THE suN--Sir: I
/ have been well acquainted with THs
! SrN for a large namber Of years and
can well remember the old maxim OF
! THE Sun, which was "if you see II In
| THE St-N IL is so''
| You do well indeed to put a question
mark after the words The Death
| Blow" Very rarely have ! seen 40
much we'll written msinformation in
such short space. II your editor had
taken the trouble To- read the law 1t
would have been impossible for him 10
write this article.
Ship owners have come to Congress
year after year for more than twenty
years and have invariably testified that
they could not compete with foreign ves-
sells. first because Of at least 33 per
cent. of higher building cost on
similar vessel. higher to the American
than to the foreign ship owner that Is,
the same class of vessel could he built
In an English yard for twc-thirds of
what she would cost in any American
yard secondly. because Of the differ
ential of from 20 to 200 per cent in
the wage cost Of operation In favor Of
a foreign vessel as against an American
one trading to and from our ports.
Congress investigated their testimony
and found II to be Substantially true I:
the wages In foreign vessels were 20
per cent lower In English ships, 80 per
cent. in italian or Austrian, thence
ranging lower until We reach the rate OF
Hongkong, which is one-quarter Of the
wages usually paid In American vessels
This is not the testimony of any labor
agitator II Is the unanimous testimony
OF the highly respectable American ship
owners.
ON June PC. 1884. Congress. upon petit
tion OF the ship owners, tried to reduce
the American wage rate TO that OF the
competing vessel regardless OF what port
the vessels we're trading to; the ship
owners were authorized 10 discharge
any crew. hired In the United states.
& y any port where the wages were lower /:
20 hire crew in that port on equal
terms with It's competitor. to take that
crew to the United States. thence back
to foreign port without reshipping
the men I'm the United States but hold
ing them to the vessel under pain OF
arrest. detention and return TO the ves-
sci, on an exact equality with the treat
rnent OF crews OF foreign vessels de-
serting In ports OF the United states.
This was success in all except
American ports II failed in American
ports because the American people had
no sympathy with this extension OF
human slavery and would assist the
seamen 10 desert and hide: judges had
no sympathy with This legislation. be-
cause 1t was an extension OF bondage
and contrary to all precedents of Ad-
mralty law. The result was an equall-
Zation OF the wage cost of operation be-
tween foreign and American vessels
trading between foreign ports. II was q
failure in American ports because Il had
against II the entire pressure OF Amer
lean life
In passing the seamen's law. so
called Congress intended 10 epua lize
the wages Of foreign and American ves-
sells first in American ports. secondly
by natural evolution in all ports For
eicn and American vessels are placed
upon exact equality and the strangIe-
hold of the foreign ship owner upon
the law Of supply and demand Is re-
moved by lihefating all seamcn that
come within Jurisdi tion OF the United
States
As the law was Japan was driving
every competitor of the Pacific Ocean.
Under tho provisions OF the seamau's
law she will have no advantage. hut
Will be on equality with all other ves-
sells coming To or going from American
PORTS. The japanese are as eager for
freedom and higher wage as any other
seamen and the japanese ship owner
VIII pay some OF his subsidy to his
seamen IN order 10 prevent them from
deser''nC IN American ports
The Pacific Mail is not going ou- ~
business because of the seamers law
MI Schwerin testified before the House
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. before the seamen's bill was
passed. that the company was going
out or business because OF the provision
in the Panama Canal act ,ha, would
prevent the vessels OF the Pacific Mall
from trading through the canal The
company is very likely reorgan!ZlrE and
divorc.nr Itself from the S7utre-~
PaciAr Railway Company. in order tha.
mo vessels may he able 70 trade r-o-,
New York TO HongkouC via san Fran
cisco and other way ports This would
correspond with the proposal To conyer,
tne vessels from coal TO oil burners
tnereoy reducing tho hreroom force
alone from ll5 10 about 90.
ANDREW FuRUsErH.
NEW York. June II.