Mr. FLETCHER. I yield to the Senator from Utah. Mr. KING. In his letter Mr. Nicolson criticizes Mr. Plummer's attempt to discredit his statement. In the attempt to discredit the Senate document in its reference to two contracts given the Robert Dollars for their two lines to Manila (under which they will receive $27,000,000, and yet neither contract requires the building of a single vessel), the commission says the fact is they are building two fine, large vessels, meaning, of course, they are doing so incident to these contracts the Senate document criticized; and he applies the $27,000,000 to the construction— handicap the owners suffer-in respect to these vessels, which handicap he puts at $9,000,000, wanting to justify the $27,000,000 to that extent. The vice chairman Speaking of Mr. Plummer, who attempted to criticize Mr. Nicolson and to discredit his statement The vice chairman fails to mention that the two vessels are being built for the postal route (the round-the-world service) covered by a third contract, which contract is not mentioned at all in the criticism of the Senate document. That is the document which was presented written by Mr. Nicolson. Mr. FLETCHER. That is what I supposed; that was my impression. Mr. KING. Mr. Nicolson continues: Under this third contract the Dollars are receiving $14,000,000 more in addition to the $27,000,000 paid under the two contracts criticized. Of course, that $9,000,000 handicap for the two vessels they are now building are chargeable to this $14,000,000 subsidy, thus leaving the $27,000,000 untouched and payable under two contracts which, we repeat, do not require any new vessels to be built, thus leaving the Senate document intact and true. Mr. FLETCHER. I understood that to be the situation, and, as I have stated, the practice followed some time ago was to let these contracts without requiring new vessels to be constructed; but I understand the present Postmaster General does not follow that practice. Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, I do not want to take the time of the Senate when we have under consideration the appropriation bill, but I will yield if the Senator from New York will not take much time. Mr. COPELAND. I merely want to say that the Postmaster General, in my opinion, has been acting in good faith in administering this law. It is true, as the Senator from Florida has stated, that certain lines which have not had building contracts in the past have been given these mail subsidies, but under the policy now being followed by the Postmaster General, where contracts are given in the form of mail subsidies there must be a building program associated with them. Mr. FLETCHER. Yes; I have stated what the attitude is, as I understand it. Now, Mr. President, I offer for the Record a list of the contracts let under the merchant marine act of 1928 and ask to have them printed. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the list will be printed in the Record. The list is as follows: Mr. McKellar obtained the floor. Mr. KING. Mr. President The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Tennessee yield to the Senator from Utah? Mr. MCKELLAR. I yield. Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent following the statement presented by the Senator from Florida to have inserted in the Record a letter which I have received from Mr. Nicolson, a paragraph from which I read a few moments ago. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered. LETTER FROM MR. JOHN NICOLSON CONTAINING PRELIMINARY REPLIES TO SOME OF MR. PLUMMER'S STATEMENTS Hon. WILLIAM H. KING, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 5, 1931. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: A reply is in preparation to the communication of Mr. E. C. Plummer, vice chairman of the United States Shipping Board, which was published in the Congressional Record for January 23, but is not yet completed I am sorry to say, for it can readily be demonstrated that the attack on the Senate Document No. 210 entitled "The Truth About the Postal Contracts" leaves that document unimpaired as a statement of the facts of the case. Under the circumstances I have prepared this letter this morning that you may have some idea of the criticisms which have been made. Mr. Plummer's obvious purpose is to impair faith in the statement of convincing facts presented in the Senate document, and to that end a large part, if not most, of the communication is directed against its author, alleging, e. g., inconsistency on his part when the Senate document is compared with earlier declarations by me. I will not attempt, in this letter, even to point out the many instances mentioned of alleged contradictions, nor deal adequately with several I will mention only to indicate that the criticisms are inaccurate and unfair. 1. In the attempt to discredit the Senate document in its reference to two contracts given the Robert Dollars for their two lines to Manila (under which they will receive $27,000,000 and yet neither contract requires the building of a single vessel) the commissioner says the fact is they are building two fine large vessels, meaning, of course, they are doing so incident to these contracts the Senate document criticized; and he applies the $27,000,000 to the construction handicap the owners suffer in respect to these vessels, which handicap he puts at $9,000,000, wanting to justify the $27,000,000 to that extent. The vice chairman fails to mention that the two vessels are being built for the postal route the round-the-world service covered by a third contract, which contract is not mentioned at all in the criticism of the Senate document. Under this third contract the Dollars are receiving $14,000,000 more, in addition to the $27,000.000 paid under the two contracts criticized. Of course, that $9,000,000 handicap for the two vessels they are now building, are chargeable to this $14,000,000 subsidy; thus leaving the $27,000,000 untouched and payable under two contracts which we repeat do not require any new vessels to be built, thus leaving the Senate document intact and true. 2. In another instance, the commissioner quotes from the 1925 annual report, and attributes to the author an alleged recommendation, in 1926, under the 1920 act, of $1,000,000 per annum to the Munson Line, and then says the contract under the 1928 law is only $200,000 more. It is superfluous to say the head of a department who merely prepares the text of a report under instructions from superior officials, e. g., a commissioner of the board, as to the conclusions to be presented is not chargeable or responsible for them; the measure of his responsibility is to be ascertained from what goes on behind the scenes, e. g., the 1927 annual report mentions a contract under the 1920 act, to the Grace Line, and that $2.25 per mile had been recommended; I probably prepared the text of that statement, and would have, even had $3 been mentioned. The report does not reveal that the commissioner was told the company's own statements showed they were earning dividends, and certainly were not entitled to much subsidy, if any. He nevertheless directed $3 per mile for this rate, the maximum ever granted under the old law. I ardently protested-even to the point of delaying administrative action until later, then renewing the subject, and the commissioner came down to $2.25. Yet, notwithstanding the earnings of the company the amount was increased under the 1928 law to $4 per mile. The fact is, the amount recommended by the board in the Munson case was $3 per mile or $490,000 per annum; and yet under the 1928 law, this was increased to $8 per mile, or $1,300,000 annually-i. e., $810,000 more annuallyand not merely $200,000. So the Munsons will get $13,000,000 and yet are not required to build even one new vessel. Any statement that the writer at any time or in any form ever recommended $1,000,000, actually or approximately, be paid the Munsons, either under the 1920 act or the 1928 law, is a very inaccurate statement of fact; he did not. 3. The commissioner comments on the criticisms made by the Senate document (p. 17) of the two contracts awarded the Oceanic & Oriental Navigation Co., and also based on an erroneous statement that these lines are building "three magnificent ships "-notwithstanding the two contracts do not require them to build any. They are doing nothing of the kind. The commissioner is mistaken. He probably has this line, the Oceanic & Oriental Navigation Co., confused with the Oceanic Steamship Co., which also has a postal contract, one under which it will receive nearly $10,000,000, and this contract does require the building of new vessels-and they are being built. What has that got to do with the criticisms made by the Senate document of the two contracts in fact criticized? Yet the commissioner says, "Why does he the author-leave the impression no such facts exist?" The answer is simple: The facts do not exist. The Senate document is accurate and true. 4. The commissioner refers to the great advance during the past 10 years in the propulsion machinery of ocean vessels; a fact which makes more surprising the unfortunate omission from many of these contracts of any requirement for new vessels-to have the subsidies keep the American merchant marine abreast of the times. Further seeking to impair faith in the Senate document, he says the author "ought to have known, and if he did not he never should have attempted to comment on these mail contracts; that the advent of the Diesel engine has caused such a development in the efficiency of steam propulsion that the machinery of any steamer built 10 or more years ago is to-day obsolete." The author knew it, and Senate Document No. 210 reveals he knew it; for it states (p. 12) in criticizing the failure to require replacements that, apart from the exhaustion of the old vessels from age, there remained the fact "they will probably have become obsolete for competition in foreign trade, so rapid has been the movement in recent years for new types of vessels, both in speed, capacity, and general efficiency-especially in the development of Diesel engines." Hence, in this respect also, the Senate document is not found wanting. The failure to give recognition to this well-known fact in the shipping world is one of the reasons-but one only-why The Truth About the Postal Contracts was written. 5. The vice chairman quotes an attitude and opinion from the 1926 annual report and attributes them to the author. He overlooks entirely, however, that the provisions of law on which they were based, and which is even quoted in the opinion, was repealed by the 1928 act; furthermore, that the Senate document points out the serious consequences of its having been repealed. Thus to compare views expressed under very different provisions of law is not exactly fair criticism. The many new statements of facts in the commissioner's communication are challenged, and I gladly assume responsibility for proving the substantial accuracy of the statements and criticisms in the Senate document. Very respectfully, JOHN NICOLSON. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, while the resolution as modified has been adopted, I want to call attention in answer to some of the statements which have been made here as to new vessels being |