tween the United States and Europe and South America for every passenger and every pound of freight. And not only that, but they reach out to the interior ports of this country and say to a man at Denver, for instance, "You must send your freight through Boston," or Philadelphia, or Baltimore, as the case may be. They tell him where he shall send it. And the railroads also, in selling their tickets, tell the passenger which ship he must take to go abroad, otherwise they will not sell the ticket to him. Now, here is a situation in regard to commerce which I think demands instant attention.

Mr. FASSETT. You state that these agreements between the American railroads and the foreign steamship lines in regard to the railroad freight and passenger rates in continuation of steamboat rates is in violation of the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Yes. It is hard to get the absolute proof in regard to the railroads.

Now, there is one other view of this situation that I want to call your attention to, where it seems to me that it calls for investigation. This is one side of the question that I do not think has ever been exploited. Take a great many of these vessels that are running into our ports: They are receiving a direct mail subsidy, many of them, from their governments. They are part of the naval auxiliary and reserve of their respective countries, and they are openly violating the laws of this country that we have passed in regard to combinations. They are entering into combinations with our railroads in restraint of trade, and are giving special rebates to favored shippers. Now, in the case of vessels of that kind, there should be an investigation as to whether they are not violating the treaties of this country that we have with the countries they represent. Those are questions that we ought to investigate, and we ought to have a committee to do it in a proper way. One thing is sure, that we are wasting largely our time in regard to passing laws to prohibit the restraint of trade in this country if we are going to permit these things to continue.

Now, I might cite one illustration. Take the case in regard to the discrimination in favor of the Steel Trust. A gentleman who resides in Pennsylvania and who represents one of the independent bridge companies of this country told me they were utterly unable to bid in competition with the Steel Trust on any foreign business on account of this discrimination. And this is true in the case of the Standard Oil and the Harvester combine. I do not think this committee should hesitate to report this resolution. I prepared the preamble in order to set forth some of the facts so as to attract the attention of people interested.

Mr. FASSETT. Why didn't this go to the Committee on the Mer-\ chant Marine?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Well, I do not know. If it had gone there it would have been reported some time ago. Last session it was introduced just before the adjournment, and the President, with whom I talked about it, told me that it ought to be a joint committee, and Senator Lodge thought the same. I then did not attempt to get a committee report, because I knew we could not get it through before Congress adjourned,

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You mean a joint commission or a joint committee?

Mr. FASSETT. A joint committee, five Senators and seven Representatives.

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. The Department of Commerce and Labor and the Department of Justice both think this resolution ought to be passed.

Mr. FASSETT. They can not secure what they desire through the Federal grand jury?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. No, sir.

Now, this evidence in regard to shipping rings is shown by the report of the Shipping Rings Commission of Great Britain. The CHAIRMAN. Of what date?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Of 1909.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that commission created by Parliament? Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Yes. This is the report of the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings, with evidence and appendixes. Now, in volume 2, on page 3, it sets out here all these different conferences, and gives the names of the vessels that compose them, where they run, and the rebates that they made. It covers the whole world. Then I want just to read, if the committee is not in a hurry, a word from the report to the British_ambassador, Mr. Bryce, by the British consular officer in New York, on page 227. He was asked to make a report as to the condition in this country. I just want to read a paragraph or two from him. He says:

I regret that owing to disinclination on the part of both shipping companies and individual shippers to afford the information required, it has been found impossible to obtain more than the mere outlines of the exact transactions.

The unwillingness above alluded to is no doubt owing to the fact that in every instance rebates have been offered by the conferences and accepted by the shippers and constitute business secrets which they are anxious to conceal. Another factor in the difficulty is that should there be any advantage accruing to American trade by such arrangements, the persons interested will give no information in the matter.

That shipping rings and conferences exist is an open secret, and the following list reveals the fact that their operations affect all the principal foreign trade routes from this port.

He is referring to the port of New York. Then he says: "The well-known conference lines are: (1) Australia and New Zealand, (2) South Africa, (3) China, Japan, and Manila, (4) River Plate, (5) Brazil," etc.; and then he sets forth in detail the lines that run from New York to different ports of the world:

Now, I want to call to your attention this, that

In most instances the shipowners and shippers deny that rebates are granted, and, though technically correct, such reimbursements can generally be found concealed under such heads as advertising or "brokerage."

The object of these rebates is no doubt to stifle competition, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any independent line to give service equal to the frequent sailing of the ring and quote rates at least 10 per cent below the conference rates or give the equivalent rebate.

Inquiries which have been made tend to show that, though discrimination in rates is granted, the system does not appear to be in force to any great extent, excepting in the case of gigantic corporations such as the Standard Oil Co. and the United States Steel Corporation, both of whom are in a position to dictate their own terms on the threat of giving their business to competing companies or of chartering their own tonnage. It is possible and even probable that other large shippers are accordingly favored in this matter, but all such transactions are disguised under some other name.

The other company or corporation that is mentioned oftenest in the evidence is the Harvester Combine. Those three companies,

Standard Oil, the United States Steel Corporation, and the Harvester Combine, seem to have special rates all the time. It seemed to me that publicity is the one great thing that we ought to have. While these volumes are published and are public documents in Great Britain, and while they contain the most sensational evidence concerning our commerce, yet until I read them nobody knew of them. Until the people know that there is no competition between the foreign vessels carrying our oversea commerce, and that the rates are placed at the highest point that the traffic will bear and fixed by agreement, we will find no remedy.

Mr. FASSETT. There is no bureau of publicity among the people who are opposing these foreigners?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. No. I can give a striking illustration of how the publicity is arranged on the side of the foreign ships. I went to New York last year and made a speech, in which I touched upon the inefficiency of the transportation facilities between this country and South America. A day or two afterwards exSecretary Shaw spoke in New York about the same subject, and later on I wrote an article in Pearson's Magazine on the same subject. Within a short time editorials appeared in a number of newspapers in this country refuting my statement as to the transportation facilities between this country and South America in strong language, and those editorials were accompanied by statements signed by shippers from New York.

They were so similar that anyone could see that they were sent out from a common source. One of these men before the Steenerson investigation committee, when asked about signing this contract, on cross-examination said that the contract was prepared by Busk & Daniels, the agents of the Lamport & Holt Line, and that when he signed it there was $28,000 due his company. Busk & Daniels took this statement, that the shipper was coerced to sign, and sent it to those papers, asking them to make favorable comment upon it, and with that request was a renewal of their advertisements in the papers. This was the way they got that editorial all over this country. I sent a copy of this testimony to those papers that had said it was an attempt to steal something out of the public Treasury, when the conditions to South America were exposed, but none of them ever made any comment on this evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly not.

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. It is a matter of publicity. If anyone wishes to see these rebate contracts and agreements in the back of a copy of this speech that I have here, I have selected out those bearing on American commerce, and you will find those there more quickly than you can by turning through these volumes of testimony of the "Royal commission on shipping rings."

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Would you be willing to have the resolution to read so as to cover domestic shipping as well as foreign?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Yes; it should be that way now. If it is not, it should be.

Mr. FASSETT. You mean the coastwise shipping?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. No. It does not cover coastwise and was not intended to.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You are not willing to have it investigated, as well as the other?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Nobody has charged anything against the coastwise shipping. It is an absolute and complete monopoly-the coastwise trade. If those engaged in it are violating the laws, let us get after them, too.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. We can ship from New York to South Carolina at half the rate at which you can ship from New York to Mobile in the coastwise trade.

Mr. FASSETT. I do not know about the salt-water rates. I know about the fresh-water rates.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Humphrey modify this resolution into the precise shape in which he wants the committee to act upon it, with Mr. Underwood's addition, so as to have these recitals made into allegations instead of assertions. You can cut them out altogether except as he wants them for a part of the record. Mr. LAWRENCE. They can be cut out entirely.

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. I will tell you why I put them in. I thought that during the vacation a lot of people would send for that resolution, and I for that reason wanted it in that form. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Suppose you broaden it so as to include the coastwise trade and reintroduce it?

Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will take it up in executive session at some future time.

(Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m., the hearing was concluded and the committee adjourned.)

The following documents were filed by Mr. Humphrey:

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER, AGAINST HAMBURG-AMERIPACKETFAHRT-ACTIEN-GESELLSCHAFT AND OTHERS, DEFENDANTS.

KANISCHE

IN EQUITY.

PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SO-CALLED SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT.

To the honorable the judges of the circuit court of the United States of America for the southern district of New York, sitting in equity:

Your petitioner, the United States of America, by Henry A. Wise, its attorney for the southern district of New York, acting under direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this proceeding in equity against The Allan Line Steamship Co. (Ltd.), International Mercantile Marine Co. (American Line), International Navigation Co. (Ltd.) (American Line), The Anchor Line (Henderson Bros.) (Ltd.), Canadian Pacific Railway Co., The Cunard Steamship Co. (Ltd.), British & North Atlantic Steam Navigation Co. (Ltd.) (Dominion Line), Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien-Gesellschaft (Hamburg-American Line), Nederlandsh-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij (Holland-Amerika Lijn), Norddeutscher Lloyd (North German Lloyd Line), Societé Anonyme de Navigation Belge Americaine (Red Star Line), Russian East Asiatic Steamship Co. (Ltd.) (Russian-American Line), Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. (Ltd.) (White Star Line), Bryce J. Allan, Phillip A. S. Franklin, John Lee, William Coverley, Charles P. Sumner, Emil L. Boas, Adrian Gips, Gustav H. Schwab, Herman C. Von Post, Gustav H. Schwab, jr., Alexander E. Johnson, and Max Strauss, and on information and belief alleges and shows:

I.

That the above-named defendants are engaged in foreign trade and commerce as common carriers of passenger and freight, and more particularly of thirdlass or steerage passengers, between ports and inland points in the United

States and ports and inland points in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and, in respect thereto, are violating the provisions of the act of Congress passed July 2, 1890, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," and the acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, as will hereinafter more fully appear; and this proceeding is instituted to prevent and restrain the hereinafter particularly described agreement, contract, combination, and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the carriage of such steerage passengers between the United States and foreign countries, and the attempts to monopolize, and the contract, combination, and conspiracy to monopolize, and the existing monopoly of such trade and commerce, as hereinafter described.

II. DESCRIPTION OF DEFENDANTS AND THE TRADE AND COMMERCE WHICH THEY CONDUCT.

1. At all the times herein mentioned, defendant, the Allan Line Steamship Co. (Ltd.), hereinafter referred to as the "Allan Line," was and now is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and, as such, engaged in trade and commerce between the United States of America and foreign nations, to wit, operating regular lines of steamships from ports in England and Scotland, in the Kingdom of Great Britain, to wit, London, Liverpool, and Glasgow, to ports in the United States, to wit, Portland, Me.; Boston, Mass.; and Philadelphia, Pa., and transporting between and to and from said ports upon its steamships freight and passengers for hire, and, particularly, that class of passengers ordinarily known and described in the steamship trade as third-class or steerage passengers; and at all such times the Allan Line has maintained agencies in divers cities in Europe and in the United States at which it has sold contracts for the transportation of freight and passengers on and by its steamships to and from the United States and from and to Europe, and has maintained agents in charge of such agencies who have been and now are engaged in soliciting persons to travel to and from Europe upon its said steamships; and in the case of all such passengers transported to the United States from Europe, it has docked its steamships and landed said passengers at one or the other of said ports of Portland, Boston, and Philadelphia, and in the case of such passengers transported to Europe, they have embarked at one or the other of said ports.

2. Defendant Bryce J. Allan is a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is and for many years has been engaged in business under the firm name and style of H. & A. Allan, with an office and place of business at the city of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts; and at all such times has been and now is employed by and acting for the Allan Line in the capacity of general agent and manager of its business in the United States, and, as such general agent, has had and now has charge of the affairs in the United States of the Allan Line in connection with its business aforesaid, and represents himself and his said office, respectively, to be the person with whom and the place at which business may be transacted with the Allan Line.

3. At all the times herein mentioned, defendant International Mercantile Marine Co. was and now is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with an office and place of business in the city, county, State, and southern district of New York, where its principle business and affairs are transacted. It holds and votes a majority of the issued and outstanding capital stock, respectively, of the defendants International Navigation Co. (Ltd.), British & North Atlantic Steam Navigation Co. (Ltd.), Societé Anonyme de Navigation Belge Americaine, and Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. (Ltd.).

4. At all the times herein mentioned, defendant International Navigation Co. (Ltd.) was and now is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain, with an office and place of business in the city, county, State, and southern district of New York, where its principal business and affairs in the United States are transacted.

5. At all the times herein mentioned, defendant International Mercantile Marine Co. has owned certain steam vessels which it has been engaged in operating between the port of New York, in the State of New York, and the port of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and the ports of Southampton and Liverpool, in England; and at all such times defendant International Navigation Co. (Ltd.) has owned certain steamships which it has been engaged in operating between said ports of New York and Philadelphia and said