The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-05-02
TWO DOLLARS PER YEAR IN ADVANCE
THE sEAMAN's LAW REFERENDUM


Some weeks when the National Chamber of Commerce sub
med for referendum affiliated organizations
THE TIMES criticised on the ground that shaped its questions
that order to vote at all patriotic member of the connected
zaons necessarily yes and that failed explain where
in specified sections denounced and in fact what
they It pointed that pro and not
they ordinary reendms submitted by ogan
ton and that effort made shed any light this important
subject regard which the ordinary resident the interior states
is not supposed have the required technical knowledge to vote
May just Everybody Magazine up the
matter edtoay which has already been decided the National
voices practically the objections that raised by THE
TIMES relative to ndefnieness. 1t says:
At last know the La Toilette Seamen
law The Chamber Of Commerce Of the United States after special
The twenty discrimination
against American shipping concerned only three sections
One of these clearly Namely-Secion Four It en-
abe seame IN American ports to desert from foreign ships But
they are already entitled in American ports desert from American
ships Section Four accordingly if hurts anybody hurts rivals
0ut DOUBT But they are guilty IN manner which most Ameri
cans have never thought Of
age test and for able seamen and for eboas and for
by the Chamber that these sections 90 too far
toward safety aciy admitted that for safety purposes these
sections are reasonable and necessary
Further it denied by the law attempts
to apply these sections to all ships foreign well American
ing our ports II the law does not succeed in doing this
be made to succeed in doing it. easily by short amendment
So then being applied all ships leaving ports
lions could not possibly discriminate against American ships and
one claims that they coudexcept particular That the Ian
The language test provides that twenty-five per
crew IN each department. of ship shall be able to understand the
ercan ships with American officers from hiring cheap
But the Department of Commerce enforcing provision
does not require the Chinese sailor understand his
when that officer remg Shakespeare 1t merely requires him to
understand HIM when he words like rope boat and
oar Does seriously contend that ship allowed
to put with which its officers
saying when they such words?
Or for that matter seriously contend that real
world wandering Chinese sailor learn
to understand such words?
NO the actual discrimination in Sections Thirteen and Four
teen is somewhere else altogether
1t be illustrated thus:
ship puts out from New York Buenos Ayres
steel rails Is obliged the expense expense
may be- OF complying with Sections Thirteen
same day from Liverpool another ship
English steel rails Not being subject Sections
teen OF the American Seamen 90 to the x
pense of complying with their provisions
1.-The freight rate between New York Buenos Avres is
charged with Sections Thirteen rate from
Liverpool to Buenos Ayres is not
This discrimination real 1t is a discrimination be-
tween American ships and English ships discrimination be-
tween the port Of New York and the Liverpool
lean steel rails and English steel rails export trade of the
United States and the export trade of acknowledgements to the
disadvantage Of the United States.
But how much of a discrimination is t The Chamber oives
no figures 1t may be large 1t may be small The ships
porant nanonaes have safety standards What extra
OF our standards? It be serious 1t may negligible The
Chamber does not We have not heard any say.
That is where the discussion stands now"