Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-10-18
Severely Criticizes Statements Made
by Officers of Pacific Mail
Steamship Company.
WRITES LETTER TO McADOO
Secretary of Commerce Lays Stress
on Fact That Decision to Sell Ships
Preceded Any Inquiry as to How
Statute Would BE Construed.


made that that company was forced
out of business by the provisions OF
the law.
Secretary Redfield lays strong stress
on the fact that the officers of the
steamship company arrived at their de-
cision to sell the company's ships be-
fore the Commerce Department had de-
termined how Tie provisions, of the sea-
mems law would he construed
1T would appear that others arc
eager 10 pick Up the mantle which the
Pacific Mail has set aside" his letter
stated Il ain even inclined to think
il may he found that vessels under the
American faS win continue - trans
port the products of American mann
facturcrs TO the lands OF the Orient"
STATEMENT OF FACTS
READILY AVAILABLE
The text OF the letter was as follows:
October I. 1915.
Dear Mr. Secretary.-Thc sale of
some Of its ships by the Pacific Mail
steamship Company has been made the
basis of such statements. both by that
company and in the press generally.
that it may be well 10 place before YOU
such facts as are AT this time readily
available.
1t has been alleged that the sea
mems law forced the COMPANY out OF
business, ana in particular that the So
called language clause would REQUIRE
the abandonment of Asiatic crews and
the substitution for them OF English
speaking crews, with a CONSEQUENT
prohibitive cost of wage and food and
that since, therefore, the company
could not operate prortably, il had. in
fact. been obliged 10 sell its vessels
and withdraw from business. Its at,i-
tude may be compressed into the state
ment made TO me by r. p. Schwer!n
vice president and general manager.
who said: I know when ! am licked
1T should he said. however, that the
Department Of Commerce is charged
with the duty Of making the regula-
tons required by the seamen's law and
with enforcing the law through those
regulations. These regulations had
not been prepared at the time when
the company's action was taken The
company did not ask the department
anything respecting the nature or tenor
or the regulations, and did not, so far
as the department knows, seek in any
way 10 learn the spirit in which the
law would he administered. 1t acted,
SO far as the department knows. upon
an assumed Interpretation of the law,
which had no official sanction
III seems, confess, an extraordinary
thing that company which at the time
of its withdrawal was doing a business
which was probably more prosperous
than ever in it's history should have
withdrawn from that business and
made the sacrifice this would seem to
imply because OF the alleged future
effects Of law, concerning which law
II asked no questions whatever of the
department charged with interpreting
and enforcing that law
IT seems To me SO astonishing that
a great business should be thus sacri-
feed nf this, indeed. were the CASEY
without the least inquiry upon the
subject from the sole available certain
source of information that took occa-
sion before the matter was concluded
TO inform r. =. Schwerin personally
that. while the department had not
then reached a conclusion as TO how
the language clause would be con-
strued. it was its opinion, so far as
the matter had then gone, that this
clause would not bear the construction
that the company had put upon il, and
that in this respect. as in at least one
other element of the statements pub
hshcd on behalf OF the company there
was, 10 say the least, ii strong prob
ability that the alleged basis of their
proposed action was not n basis which
existed in fact.
SUGGESTED TO COMPANY
FAIR TRIAL OF LAW
Il furthermore pointed out to Mr..
Schwprin al
somewhat prior 10 July Is, that if the
company desired 10 avoid the alleged
sacrifice Of its business, and wished TO
secure consideration of a change In
the law. its position before Congress
and the country would be much
stronger if it III good faith COMPLIED
with the law for 1t period Of not less
than six months after learning how
the department construed the law and
would then come before Congress with
the actual results OF such experience.
suggested that congressional COM
| mittee could hardly fail to give
thoughtful heed 10 actual demonstrated
facts presented by company which
had in good faith and with carefully
ascertained knowledge striven to com
| ply with the law in letter and spirit.
1T was suggested. on the other hand
| that for the company to throw up its
! hands in advance without so much as
! asking what the law meant from those
| who alone could tell il, and to with
! draw without giving the matter trial,
| would not commend itself TO public
! opinion as an argument against the
law. which the company refused 10 try.
| ] was At that time informed that the
| company was negotiating for the sale
| Of its ships, which sale, as you know.
was later concluded as regards Ave
of them.
Il now ask your attention to dcpart
ment circular No. PCS. dated September
is, that constructs the language clause
as told Mr.. Schwcrin more than two
| months earlier it would. in nv iudp
ment. he construed. The final CLAUSE,
OF inns circular are the department s
answer to certain fears expressed bv
Mr.. SchWerin that the law would hc
so administered as to DC "A means of
oppression apart from It's actual tenor
I'm view OF the construction of IN.