I do not believe that when the coal strike is terminated in France and they go to produce coal again, that there is going to be much coal shipped to France even under the Marshall plan.

Of course, I know they like to have this Government give them the goods but I think the day is coming when it will have to be stopped. There is more coal moving to France today than ordinarily moves there and it is because of the strike. I have known of coal strikes in England when there would be a tremendous number of shiploads of coal shipped out of this country to England, although they bought it in those days, but that was because they were under strike.

Mr. HAND. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that those figures might be of some consequence and they are certainly obtainable. With your approval, I would like to have them inserted in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have them if we can obtain them. I will be glad to accept them in the record and I will call on the proper agency.

Mr. GARNER. Mr. Chairman, may I say that the Maritime Commission does provide certain records.

The CHAIRMAN. If the Maritime Commission has them, we will request Admiral Smith to provide them.

(The information is as follows:)

COMMERCIAL EXPORTS, 1948 AND 1938

For the fiscal year 1948 (that is from July 1947 through June 1948), United States commercial exports, excluding the Great Lakes, totaled 66,700,000 long tons of dry cargo. Of that 66,700,000, 36,300,000 tons were carried in American-flag vessels. In 1938 the total United States commercial exports, excluding the Great Lakes, amounted to 23,500,000 tons and that carried by United Statesflag vessels was 5,500,000 tons. In the fiscal year 1948 United States commercial exports to Europe totaled 47,700,000 tons, of which American-flag vessels carried 25,800,000 tons. In 1938 exports to Europe totaled only 12,900,000 tons, and that carried by American-flag vessels amounted to only 2,800,000 tons.

United States coal exports in the fiscal year 1948 totaled 34,300,000 tons. In 1938 they amounted to 1,100,000 tons. United States coal exports to Europe in 1948 totaled 29,800,000 tons. In 1938 approximately 100,000 tons went to Europe.

For the fiscal year 1948 wheat and corn exports (excluding those to Canada and Mexico) totaled 8,500,000 tons. Wheat and corn exports to Europe totaled 4,100,000 tons. The 4,100,000 tons to Europe exclude movements to Trieste, Bizonia, and the French zone in Germany, which totaled 2,784,000 long tons.

In 1938 the total grain (including wheat, flour, corn, oats, barley, rye, etc.) exports from the United States amounted to 6,700,000 tons. Exports to Europe of all grain totaled 4,200,000 tons.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Mr. Bonner?

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, if no one else is, I am greatly interested in the latter part of Mr. Garner's statement because I have had in mind the very proposals that you make here, setting up some scale or standard by which these ships could be chartered if it is necessary to charter them to those who are trying to build a merchant marine; that is something that this committee has been endeavoring to do for years, something that the chairman of this committee has made a life study on, trying to build up a permanent merchant marine and I do think that if we can add some amendment to this bill, such as is suggested in Mr. Garner's statement here, whereby we will give preference in chartering to those who have shown a vital interest in the building of an American merchant marine, it would be excellent.

Mr. Bailey yesterday made the statement that this was a temporary matter and that, therefore, we had to deal with it; so in dealing with it, we had better deal with it, I think, Mr. Chairman, with those who are showing an interest in building a permanent merchant marine. The suggestion that is laid out here will, in my opinion, stabilize and encourage greater ownership in a permanent merchant marine.

Mr. GARNER. I certainly feel so.

Mr. BONNER. Do you have drawn any amendment to the act as suggested by your statement here in this part of it?

Mr. GARNER. I do not have them prepared at this time, Mr. Bonner, but I can have them by noon or tomorrow.

Mr. BONNER. In your opinion, in the light of what Mr. Bailey said, how many ships are necessary to carry the commerce under American flag ships that exist today in addition to the tonnage already available by owned ships, by operators who own their own ships?

Do I make myself clear?

Mr. GARNER. I believe I understand what you are asking.

Mr. BONNER. This is competition to those who have shown good faith, buying ships, owning ships and operating ships.

Mr. GARNER. It is unfair.

Mr. BONNER. What tonnage needs to be added to that that is already owned by operators to adequately carry the tonnage in international trade that we must carry today?

Mr. GARNER. Mr. Bonner, today there may not be a sufficient number of privately owned ships to handle what is going to later prove to be a normal flow of our foreign commerce and our domestic commerce by water. We must observe that whereas today there are not as many privately owned vessels, numerically speaking, as did exist prior to the war, but at the same time the dead-weight tonnage is much greater than that prior to the war.

Mr. BONNER. That is the reason I speak in terms of tonnage because I realize that the ship today carries more freight than it used to. Mr. GARNER. Yes. In addition to the dead-weight tonnage, most of the ships today are much faster than those that were on the high seas prior to the war. So that they are a faster ship, we will say, with 15 knots as compared to a 10-knot ship and you can do 50 percent more work. You see, it has pyramided both as to the number of voyages and as to the amount of dead-weight tonnage.

I want to say to you gentlemen, after making an inquiry yesterday for my own knowledge, that I endeavored to determine how many ships today, both chartered and privately owned, are engaged in the transportation of this ECA cargo.

I am told that there are less than 100 that are today engaged in the transportation of the ECA cargo.

Mr. HAND. As related to what total number of ships?
Mr. GARNER. The total privately owned today is 655.

Mr. HAND. I mean the total number of ships engaged in carrying the commerce?

Mr. GARNER. Today, in addition to the 655 that are privately owned, Mr. Hand, there are slightly in excess of 300 Government-owned vessels now under charter. Now there has been a rapid redelivery of charter vessels to the Commission within recent months and they

are being turned back so fast that the Commission staff is actually almost unable to keep up with them.

They are doing the best job they can but no one thought that there would be such an avalanche.

Mr. HAND. From a peak of 1,500?

Mr. GARNER. From a peak of 1,500 and that is in addition to the privately owned ones.

Mr. BONNER. If they are being turned back so rapidly, Mr. Garner, chartered ships, what motivates this bill here to continue to charter? I think that is a fair question to ask.

Mr. GARNER. Mr. Bonner, I really believe that the purpose on the part of some people in trying to get the chartering authority extended is so that they will be enabled to continue in business with the use of Government tools. I do not know what position the Maritime Commission is going to take on this matter. There may be some justification, some logical reason advanced to you as to why this should be extended. I do not see any reason why it should be extended but I have stated to you that if you are convinced of any sound and sufficient reason justifying a further extension of this charter authority that as a means of protecting the huge investments that private owners have already put in the American merchant marine, those charterers should be restricted only to private owners.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Garner, will you permit me to interrupt for

a moment?

May I ask the counsel if the report on this bill has come in?
Mr. MEADE. No, it has not.

Mr. GARNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make myself clear on the comment I made a moment ago with reference to the number of ships that are now engaged in the transportation of ECA cargo.

I said it was less than 100 ships and that refers to chartered ships. In addition to that the privately owned ships are of course participating in the business.

Mr. BONNER. What part of the cargo that is being carried by chartered ships could be absorbed by ships that are owned and operated outright by private companies?

Mr. GARNER. I am inclined to think that based on the picture as I see it today, Mr. Bonner, if that cargo were properly and reasonably distributed to the vessels that there would be plenty of privately owned vessels to handle it.

Now, for example, some of the Government departments insist on handling in cargo lots and many of the operators insist that they are entitled to have that.

For many years grain was one of the commodities that was attractive to liner vessels operating in liner trades, it moved in partial lots and it is a very desirable traffic and it is a very desirable way to move it in parcel lots. When that grain is taken away from the liner and put on a ship taking a full load, then the liner ship suffers.

Mr. BONNER. Now, Mr. Garner, those companies operating their own ships, have they the facilities to operate all additional ships that may be necessary to carry the emergency cargo?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir, Mr. Bonner.

If you deem it wise and do extend this chartering authority and you loan this charter to the owners, I can assure you that the owners

are capable and competent to handle the additional charter ships such as they may charter.

Mr. BONNER. I take it that your testimony is, and I know it is, from experience and in the face of your testimony and in the light of your testimony, should we renew the charter authority we are refuting the very purpose that we have been working for for the last number of years under the leadership of Mr. Bland, who has tried to build up a permanent merchant marine?

Mr. GARNER. Well, I think, Mr. Bonner, that the continuation of this chartering authority defeats the very basic purpose of the Ship Sales Act in that it retards the sale.

Mr. BONNER. I know it does that. And I have felt that. Now I am on another angle. We have sought for years, and Mr. Bland has given the greater part of his life, to the merchant marine and the hope of building up a permanent merchant marine under the American flag.

Are we rebutting the very purpose and are we tearing down the effort that he has given to it?

Mr. GARNER. Positively.

The CHAIRMAN. If it is for the best interest of the American people, I am willing that it be torn down. I am for the sole interest of the American people.

Mr. BONNER. Of course, Mr. Chairman. I do not desire to interfere with business operation. My desire is to build up the national defense of this country and in building up an American merchant marine we are building up the defense of this country. I do not want to do something that will nullify the very effort that you have made and that I have followed you in.

The CHAIRMAN. I am thankful for that.

Mr. BONNER. I think it is a high compliment to you. You have indoctrinated me with it.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you are such a good pupil.

Any further questions?

Mr. WEICHEL. May I ask a few questions to bring out tonnage? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Garner, the dead-weight tons before the war, operating under the American flag was around 11,000 or 12,000 deadweight tons? I mean millions of tons.

Mr. GARNER. I do not think there were that many of dry cargo.

Mr. WEICHEL. Dry cargo and wet cargo was somewhere over 10,000,000 dead-weight tons of all American shipping. Was about onethird of that tankers?

What I am getting at is that with reference to the tonnage operated before the war under the American flag and that operated now by private owners, how far apart is that gap now, about 2,000,000 tons or something?

Mr. GARNER. I think today there is a greater number of dead-weight tons of dry cargo ships and possibly tankers under the American flag than we had prior to the war.

Mr. WEICHEL. The next question is then, if there is not any gap between the dry cargo dead-weight tonnage that we had before the war and what you have now, because it has been testified before this committee on numerous occasions that the postwar American merchant

marine when it finally simmers down, the dead-weight tonnage would be pretty close to what it was before the war.

Now if it has about reached that, is that sufficient privately owned tonnage to carry this European aid?

Mr. GARNER. I think it is, Mr. Weichel.

Mr. WEICHEL. I am talking now without any charter, is that enough?

Mr. GARNER. I think there are enough privately owned ships today to transport all of the ECA cargo and all of the other trade.

Mr. WEICHEL. There is enough American-flag ships, dead-weight tons, to carry all the cargo that is offered to American-flag ships even with this 50 percent business?

Mr. GARNER. I think so.

As a matter of fact, it is reasonable to expect that the foreign commerce of the United States in the future years is going to increase.

Now, the records of the Maritime Commission show that for years and years and years prior to the war that a small percentage, only a small percentage, of our foreign commerce was transported in American-flag ships. I think we should seek to reach a goal of at least 50 percent of our foreign commerce for transportation of Americanflag vessels.

Some owners and a good many owners today, Mr. Weichel, now own a greater number of ships and a greater number of dead-weight tons of ships than they did prior to the war. Our company, for example, prior to the war had 37 vessels that were slow vessels and way up in years and they were much smaller than the vessels we now own. In other words, today we own a substantial number of vessels in excess of what we owned prior to the war and that is true of many other owners.

We bought these ships because we intended to remain in the shipping business. We bought them without any guarantee of being able to operate them this year or next year or 20 years from now at a profit.

Mr. WEICHEL. With reference to this approximate tonnage of dry cargo, as you say, which is about even as compared to before the war, and you think it is sufficient to carry American cargo that can be offered to American-flag ships even under this 50-50 or even greater basis?

However, in view of the attitude of the State Department and the economic aid program, so that they might not have an excuse for giving it all to foreign flags as they have been doing, it might be well to extend this charter, for example, so that you can have a place to go and get the ships.

Mr. GARNER. Mr. Weichel, if the chartering authority is terminated and if we find that we can use a greater number of ships than we now own, we will go to the Commission and try to buy some ships.

Mr. WEICHEL. In other words, you are saying that to carry all of the cargo offered to American-flag ships, including all of the European aid, that is if there is not enough ships privately owned, if they have that business offered, they will purchase the ships?

Mr. GARNER. I believe, Mr. Weichel, that a lot of people will purchase ships.

Mr. WEICHEL. Would that be a surplus tonnage that you would not use in normal times?

Mr. GARNER. So far as ECA cargo, I hope the day is coming when it will be stopped because the taxpayers of this country cannot afford to pay the bill.