| Summary: | "The Sailor's Union of the Pacific" documents the history of the Sailor's Union along the Pacific Coast from 1885 to 1928. Although Peter Gill is credited as the primary author, Ottilie served as the co-author of the book, a process she describes in her autobiography "Against the Current." (Markholt, Ottilie, "Against the Current," page 143-148; 153, http://content.lib.washington.edu/u?/pnwhm,661) Ottilie Markholt was born on Febuary 25, 1916 in Candle, Alaska. She was an active member of the Pierce County labor movement and published several works on the history of labor unions. She died in Tacoma, Washington on November 25, 2004. mede to organize the longshoremen as soon as the locals cooper?, ted with the s a ilo rs . ^oth were u n ion ized , and wages at the latter concern increased from $3 to ,4 a d a y . But eight Oregon longshore locals continued to f ig h t . At the Oregon State Federation of Labor convention the f a l l of 1905 they introduced a resolution, in spite of a tacit understanding that the dispute be kept off the flo o r , to support the I . L . i . & T .^ .A * and refuse the S a i l o r s ’ Union membership in the Oregon £.tate Federation of Labor. The resolution was non-concurred in unanimously, and the longshoremen walled out. a resolution introduced by the S a il o r s ’ Union was passed urging the Executive Council of the -.irerican Federation of Labor to try to settle t:.e d isp u te. September 22nd the Executive Council reiterated its endorsement of Cxompers’ letter condemning the forced surrender of longshorem e n ^ charters. THE GOMPERS ’ AWARD OL k* Arbitrates The international Seamen's Union submitted an exhaustive review of the dispute to the ^ittsburg convention of the A. F. of L . in 1905, demanding that the Federation settle the controversy, stating in part: "The designations, ’ Seamen’ and ’ Longshore; e n 1, appearing in the respective charters of these organizations carry y;ith them a universally accepted understanding of the ju r is dictions respectively granted, that of the seamen extending over a l l men employed in any capacity as members of the crew 547 of rny vessel; that of the longshoreren extending over a l l men employed exclusively in tie work of loading and unloading v e s se ls, where the crews are not employed in such work, or in assisting the latter when they are so employed. . . . . • Seamen in order to be organized effe ctiv ely must control the movement of a vessel, an impossibility unless the firemen were in the international Seamen’ s union. T\ . ♦ The refusal of the longshoremen to work with the Seamen, while ostensibly b^sed upon the allegation that the latte r, when engaged in loading or discharging v essels, are f fapk performing i-ong shoremen s wori., is in act an attack upon < the Seamen s rights and duties under the maritime law, which rights and duties both the seaman and his employer are mutually bound by law to respect and discharge. "These actions on the part of the ^ongshoreisn constitute a grave menace to the autonomy of the international Seamen’ s Cnion of -America, and w i l l , if permitted to continue, either by tacit consent of the -American Federation of ^abor or by in ab ility on the part of the Seamen to defend themselves, result in the ultimate destruction of the international Seamen’ s union, or it s absorption by the organization of another arid a separate c r a ft , which alternative would r e s u lt in the destruction of the Seamen s hopes of protection and improve-fs m ent." The longshoremen contended that only on the Pac ific Coast did sailors work cargo, to which the seamen replied that only on the r acific Coast did seamen have a good organization and 348 conditionsf because cargo work meant continuous employment afcd independence of orlops* The A.F* of L, recommended that & committee of two from each organization meet within sixty days to select a fifth person, or if unable to agree that the ^resident of the A*F* of select a fifth person, the five to constitute an arbitration board with final authority, and recommended that the longshoremen discontinue use of the long name until approved by the arbitration board* So hostile were the disputants that they had difficulty agreeing upon a neutral m e ting plaee, but the conference was finally arranged at Erie, Pennsylvania, April 18, 1906* ^uruseth and Macarthur represented the seamen, and Henry C. Barter and A* ^ d s e n the longshoremen* ^resident Gompers was agreed upon aa arbiter. Airing the three~day conference both sides presented lengthy cases* Ho agreement was reached, and Gompers took the matter under consideration, postponing the decision until after the strikes then In progress by the organisations should be settled* %anwhlle the X*L*M*& 3&I*A* came Into frequent collisions with the seamen and the A*F* of L* In its expansion on the Atlantic and itfakes* At the 1906 convention of the A«F* of L* the convention directed the ^ake Pilots (who had been granted an A*F» of L* charter by the Executive Council without know* ing they were already chartered under the I*L*A.) to choose one affiliation and drop the other* The I*S*T7* convention in December, 1906, reported aev- 349 eral eases* The I*L*A* chartered the Northern Boatmen’ s Association, when the Inland Seamen’ s Union already existed under the I*@*U» In the same territory* After protest by the seamen the X*L*A, cancelled the charter and the m mbers joined the Inland Seamen's Union* The lakes Firemen vote4 to get a charter dlreet from the A*F* of I.*, and were referred to the I*S«U«, with which they affiliated in 1907* The Atlantic district reported Itself faced with a jurisdictional fight over the unions untie? the longshoreman in ^ew York harbor* In Sew Orleans the Central labor Union denied the seamen a seat upon protest of the I*L.A* * In Boston the longebore-men���s District Council took the position that all lighter cap* tains who were not required to have licenses were longshoremen and not mariners* A decision by Justice Holmes son® months later that dredgemen were seamen strengthened the seamen's position in claiming such craft* The ftqmmra* Awed. July, 1907, Samuel tempers finally rendered a decision: *1* The use by the International Long&orassn’ s Association of the additional title ^arine and Transport Workers9 is not essential to its rights and interests» and it is essentially prejudicial to the rights and Interests of the seamen* Therefore, and for further reasons hereinafter given, the further use by the International Longshoremen's Association of the addltloi&l title Marine and Transport Workers * is to be discontinued* "2* The work of loading and unloading vessels (with the - r~. "S 1 ^ , , i -J—’•* 350 following exceptions) belongs to the Longshoremen: "Exceptions:** "(a ) In the coastwise trade, when seamen bring a vessel into port, remain with the vessel for its onward coarse or for its return to the Initial port, the work of loading or unloading the cargo to the extent of the ship's tackle may be performed by the seamen* "(b ) Seamen may load or unload cargoes, beyond the ship9s tackle, bat only with the consent of or by agreement with the Lons& ores&a* "3* Under no circumstances (unless by consent of or agree* sent with the feongsh or omen) may seamen load or unload cargoes unless they (the seamen) are of the vessel*s sailing crew in an in®-or out-bound voyage* And then only as above described in Exception (a)* "Representatives of both contending organizations at the hearing declared that if the principle contention was removed so far as the attitude of the organizations to each other is concerned, there would be no reason why the best possible relations should not exist between them and their cooperation established to secure the best possible results for all con* earned* "The seamen are justly concerned in the affairs affecting them, particularly in relation to the maritime laws governing their services* The efforts made to secure changes in these laws cannot be hazarded, particularly to a body of m©n>iaj^i9 under the assumption of a title that they are mar351 itime and transport workers, undertake to deal with the nee-eseities and legal demands of the seamen* "On the other hand, in the matter of work of loading and unloading cargoes, in my opinion, the eeamen are unduly apprehensive regarding the laws affecting them* The evidence shows that under modern conditions of naritixae commerce the erne tom and practice ere for longshoremen generally to perform that work* There may he instances of imperative neceesity where seamen may he repaired to load and unload cargoes, and the award herein covering that part of such necessity prac-t tically covers all that can be required* "There can be no question but that if the International Seamen's Union and the International Longshoremenfs a sso c* iation, with its several attached trade«*unions, were to hold a joint oonferenoa it would be productive of great good. Such conference should consider fche adoption of some joint titles to establlah some form of federation or federated action among the organisations in interest for the protect-ion and prompt!on, upon the economic, as well as the legislative fie&d, of the interest of the men of all £h&lcalllngs affected, to the end that the wages, hours and conditions of employment may be safe-guarded and improved and the lawful rights of all broadened and advanced* I therefore further decide i "That a conference of the representatives of the organizations herein named and referred to, be held at Norfolk, Va*, beginning November 11, 1907, for the purpose of carry332 ing tills desirable end into effect*” The sailora bailed the decision as a victory, interpreting the Htackle to tackle" jurisdiction to naan that sailors could also unhook loads from the ship's tackle on the dock* A few weeks after the award was published the I*L*M*& T*W*4* convention notified Gompers officially that they rejected the decision* The next American Federation of Labor convention, 1907, recommended "that the International Longshoremen be and are hereby required to change their name in accord with the decision rendered by ^resident Gompers as arbitrator* * * •" But the controversy again came before the American Federation of Labor in 1908, as the longshoremen still refused to recognise the Gompers9 award* At the convention a committee of ten: Furuseth, Olander, Frazier and stack from the seamens Keefe, O’Conner, Fuller and Bowler from the longshoremen; and two American Federation of ^abor representatives finally reached an agreement: "First— That the Longshoremen eliminate from their name or title the words * Marine and Transport Workers9, and resume their official title YThe International Longshoremen’s Association’ * "Second— That this change of title shall not in any way be construed as requiring the Longshoremen to relinquish any members or branches now affiliated with them under the title of International Longshoremen, Msrine and Transport Workers' Association* "Third— That as to jurisdiction over work, should any dispute arise, the officers or designated representatives of the 353 two unions, the Seamen and longshoremen s h a ll meet and by conference attempt a satisfactory settlement. "Fourth— That every pee sible effort be made by both the Longshoremen and the Seamen to restore the amicable re lation s that existed between them some years ago, and be thereby helpful to each other in .promoting the in d u stria l interests of both. "F if t h— That the office rs of the American Federation of Labor lend every assistance in their power to restore harmony between the longshoremen and the Seamen, and also aid them in every possible manner to perfect their respective organizations. ” The International Seamen’ s °nion r a t ifie d the agreement. The Lo:;#shore.-.en* s Onion of the x acific February 2 and 3 , 1908, the Oregon locals of the Pac ific Co&st Brar< ch of the I . L .k . & T . W • & . , compr ising Por tla n d , I.ainier, Astoria and Coos Bay met at Rainier to form the Pacific Coast Association of Longshoremen, severing their a f f i l i a t i o n with the I .L .L .J t T.'.v.A. because the latter r e fused to rccognize the Rompers’ award. They petitioned iweefe unsuccessfully for permission to apply for an a . i . of L . charter pending fin a l settlement. Prior to that, in the spring of 1907, the Northwest locals in convention in Seattle organized the i-ongshoremen’ s Association of the Pacific Coast. In the f a l l of 1908 the two organizations met jointly in Portland and consolidated as the Longshoremen’ s Union of the P a c i f i c , in October, 1908, 354 the L .U .P . requested a conference with the Sailors’ Union on jurisdictional questions. At the second convention of the L .U .P . at San Francisco in 1909 fifteen locals were represented, and the niggers and Stevedores of that city sent fraternal delegates* The main question before the convention was reaffiliation with the International* ^resident 0 ’Conner, also In attendance, strongly urged It* Sentiment was divided among the delegates, some favoring home rule, others International affiliation for defense, and others a combination* After the convention an agreement was drawn up between the L*U*P* and the 1»L.A* to govern relations between the two if the L*U.P* ratified the terms and voted to affiliate* The agreement outlined the mutual obligations of each organization, and distinctly preserved the autonomy of the Pacific Coast* With subsequent ratification of the agreement the L.U*P* became the Pacific Coast District of the I*i»*A* The following years ware marked by steady growth of the organization and increased control of wages and working conditions, culminating In agreements covering praotleally all the loeals on the Coast and establishing union wages and conditions on the docks* Sailors egg. lommoxsma’s Mie£3£Wr~MS£rl8ML While open conflict ceased between sailors and longshoremen, disputes over cargo work continued to arise periodically. In 1909 the l*ongshor eicen ’ s Union of the ^aelfie protested to Andrew Furuseth against Sailors’ Union crews working cargo 355 on vessels loading at Puget Sound or the Columbia River bound foreign, and then quitting* Furuseth, according to L*U*P* minutes, defended seamen's jurisdiction and refused to recognise (tampers* ability to decide suck jurisdiction* % 1910 relations with the sailors seem to have improved, although Aberdeen protested that the Sailers* union had turned loose some thirty sailors with permission to longshore* The trouble was adjusted with Furuseth. local 38-12, Seattle, asked the convention to take action through the A*F* of L• "in regard to the sailors interfering with the Longshoremen’s work under the open shop and the Sailors* Union allowing their members to stay on the outside of the Longshoreman^ Union*" In October, 1910, the sailors assisted the San *edro longshoremen to resist a wage cut* isolations with the sailors were still not altogether satisfactory by 191 a, although San ^edro reported that longshoremen had refused to work with scab sailors on the ^aauaond vessels, and in return sailors had refused to work with scab long- Shoreman* Kagle Harbor complained that sailors were working with scab longshoremen, letting the union longshoremen shift for themselves, although while the longshoremen were working they had refused to work with scab sailors* Grays Harbor charged that sailors refused to stop working with scabs* Eureka complained that less than ten par cent union can were working on the docks, tracing the trouble to ths 1906 strike ishen the Sailers* Union went back to work and left the longshoremen without any settlement* 356 Ftre&heg Jurisdictional Disputes At the 1911 convention of the .American Federation of Labor the International Longshoremen’ s Association brought charges against the sailors for scabbing, claiming that they were entitled to load and discharge vessels on the Columbia River going foreign* Fur use th commented: "The 3a w provides that our work is from tackle to tackle with reference to ear-go, end that our money already earned ofcy be paid to anyone doing the work sfcioh we refuse* Cur answer was that the longshoremen doing so much of this work as we are capable of doing are scabbing on us*” The convention decided that the decision of the 1908 convention should continue to govern both organisations* Later before the A*ff* of L. Executive Council the longshoremen repeated their charges* Furueeth opposed the proposed Transportation Department of the A*F» of L* on the ground that it would be largely composed of land workers who didn’ t understand seamen s problems* 0*Conner, who favored the department, clsimed Furueeth didn’t represent the rank-and-file seamen#s opinions* The I*S*U* voted against establishing the Transportation Department* Karly in 1912 Compere again instructed the seamen and longshoremen to live up tb the deoision* In 1915 the International Longshoremenfs Association applied to the American Federation of Labor for jurisdiction of iisharnsan, but after a conference with the seamen arranged by the A*F* of L. abandoned the claim* In San Francisco in 1911 the Sailors* Union complained that machinists claimed jurisdiction over repair work and 357 shipped on cpeu-chop vessels that the Union was having trouble vfith. P ain ters, boilermakers, riggers and others claimed jurisdiction of woric done in port, leaving nothing for the sailors i f they had recognized the claims. r’urusoth and t :j3 ^uiy; shoremen In June, l'i»ll, ^’uruseth wrote in the 0 ournal on relations with the longshoremen, &e reviewed the arguments used previously by the seatsen in defending their right to work cargo: that the seamen would be deprived of steady employment and a sub stunt ial part of their wages, that the more the longshoremen aede the less the seamen would isake ^the wage fund theoryJ. ” . , . t\ combination with the longshoremen was d i f f ic u l t for the further reason that the seaman’ a wages under the lav; nay be paid to the longshoreman or anybody else for doing whatever work the seaman refuses to a c , It seems plain that while the seaman is under compulsion to labor to f u l f i l l the contract made, alliance with the longshoremen is no remedy. "This is the p^nactsa presented to us from every soapbox on the street in these latter days, -^et us see how this vouid work. The steamer Bear is at the dock taking a cargo, i-long comes a delivery wagon with g o;,,e stuff that is to go in the v essel. The driver is asked for his card; lie lias none, and, recording to this much-lauded doctrine, the longshoremen should quit in preference to accepting the s t u ff. Assuming that the longshoremen do qui^,and the seamen are ordered to taLe the s t u f f , and they also refuse, then, while the longshoremen get what money they have earned, the seaman’ s money— 558 money already earned— is under the law taken to pay the seab, who does the work* "Who Is hurt? Hot the owner; he is losing nothing* Not the longshoreman; he has lost nothing. The seaman lost his job, a small thing, hut he has also lost the money for which he has been working . -Met us take this same thing into a steam schooner and see hm it will work. Sailors refuse to aecept lumber from non-union men; sailors are discharged. Scabs are obtained and the vessel proceeds to Sen Francisco or San *edros there the longshoremen refuse to handle the cargo; they are locked out, as they were in 1906. Union sailors can not get in any of the vessels. Hat result: Seab longshoremen and scab sailors at work. The friendly owners who wish to live at peace and pay going wages are driven into alliance with unfriendly owners. 3hp Isas been hurt? Hot the scabs, nor the unfair owners; all these have been benefited. The only persons hurt are the ^ lo n seamen and the fair Shipowners. A few scabs have succeeded In getting the ynion men to qpit work. The scabs and the unfair owners have ealled a strike of the ^nlon men against the fair owners. Could stupidity or cunning Invent a more silly, or a more clever and effective means of defeating the Union men and hurting the employer who wishes to be fair to labor? "But more than this. If the seamen are under the law of Imprisonment they will be arrested and either sent back to prison err put back on board the vessel where they ^P&t work." 359 Pa GIFIC CCAST LOiiGSHORKMi^’ o STRIi2E~X916 Striiie Jail Along the Pacific Coast in 1915 longshoremen followed an aggressive policy of org^niaation and improvement of wages ana conditions* In ^arch, 1915, Vancouver longshoremen struck against wage reductions. i-fter a month the strike C&te t v)H^ was eottled, with support of boycott of unfair vessels by tbe d is t r ic t , curing the summer the d is t r ic t negotiated regional agreements for Sr>n Jr&ncisco Bay, Puget ✓ / wound, B r itish Joluaibia and other lo c a l it ie s , oroviding s i x - • f ty day n o tific ation clauses before being abrogated. ‘Xhe I'^lo d is tr ic t convention voted to disregard tne sixty day no tific ation and strike wune 1st i f the scale of 55 cento an hour and §1 overtime for general oargo work, 60 cents <nd V1 for lumber with overtime for various kinds of ;>ork, and 40 cents and 6C cents for warehousemen was not recognised, giving ;50 days* n o t ific a tio n . June 1 , 19 16, longshoremen from Juneau to San Diego struck for a 35 per cent wage increase and a new working schedule. B r itish Columbia locals were net called out because Canada was at war. .ft si a week the executive 0 om it tee of the longshoremen met a committee from the Waterfront Employers * Union at San Francisco, and June 9th a temporary settlement covering freight ar-d passenger vessels was made. Husber carriers were not a ffe c te d , end no conference was arranged for them. Under the settlement the longshoremen, except lumber lo c e is , re turt- e d to wor V. 360 Strike i\enev;efl June 18th Homer water, a tegro scab, shot and k ille d Thomas Olson on the San Francisco wa ter front, for which 2ie was sentenced to ten years in San iuentin. It was reported that a l i f e position as "guard" or "slugger" v;t s waiting him when he was fre ed. In Tacoma i^-Iex Laidlaw was k ille d during the strik e, June 20th, as a result of O lso n’ s murder, the longshoremen delivered an ultimatum demanding "discharge and dispersing of a ll strike-breakers in their employ by June 21, at 5 p .m ." The employers refused to discharge scabs, housed in barges in Sen Francisco Bay. Thereupon the longshoremen walked out, ending the temporary settlement of June 9th. The employers submitted proposals to the waterfront Workers’ federation, ^nd a meeting was held June 20th as a result of the fe d e r a tio n ’ s e ffo r t s , longshore o ffic ia ls agreed to submit the employers’ propositions to a c onste^ce vote, -i.bout half the long sh or ere n were wo iking under the new wages and conditions, and had not been affected by the second walk out, as the stevedoring companies were not members of the employers* union. Cn the lumber carriers some progress was shown, and operators agreed to meet the diggers and Stevedores’ Union of San Francisco. Selig Perlmen and ^ h ilip Taft said in "history of ^ab n the United States, 1896-1932" of the employers’ rctiv-t ie s : "The strike was accompanied by the usual violence and • gave the Chamber of Commerce the desired opportunity to intervene, a mase meeting of 2 ,0 0 0 business men pledged i t self to uphold the open shop* A Law and Order Committee, with the president of the Sen Francisco Chamber of Commerce at its head, wee set up and $3 4 0 ,0 0 0 were subscribed on the spot towards a ^ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 fighting fund* Captain Robert Dolla r , of the Dollar Lines, and other water front employers, old enemies of unionism and directly irvolved in the current strike, were leading s p i r i t s ." The Waterfront Kmployers replied that they were not attempting to make San Francisco or the P ac ific C0ast non-union or open shop. Strikers he.iect Terras The employers proposed that the longshoremen return to work arid remain under the existing agreement effective at San Francisco December 31 , 1915; at Seattle September 12 , 1915; and at Ssn *edro November 15, 19 15. The Journal continued: "vath the exception that the wages of longshoremen scheduled under these agreements at 50 cents regular tine and 75 cents overtime, or le s s , shall immediately be 55 cents regular time and 82^> cents overtime; work for which 55 cents regular tine arid $ 1 .0 0 overtime were paid under the terms of the agreement w ill continue on the same b a s is that a ll work on cargo now regarded as ’unfair* shall be re-established and work on this class of cargo to resume as heretofore under the above mentioned agreements.” The day work was resumed a committee of two from the international longshoremen’ s Association Executive Board, two from the Waterfront Federation, two from the Employers’ Union and ^ohn P . Lie Loughlin, the ^abor Commissioner, were to meet to settle the differen ces. Jages of car loaders and warehousemen could be increased in accordance with the f in d ings on rates. Employers agreed to discharge scabs as soon as the agreement was accepted. Following rejection by the longshoremen’ s D istric t Executive Board the employers withdrew the offer and imported increased scabs. June 24th the vVaterfront orkers* Federation offered a counter proposal: "That a joint conference committee be organized as f o l lows* H r . White Conciliation Commission of the Department of 'Wibor , Chairman; such number of employers as the Waterfront employers’ bnion may designate; five members of the district executive board of the international Longshoremen’ s Association; five members of the Riggers and Stevedores’ Union; and fiv e members of the Waterfront .orkers* Federation; such joint committee to meet at the coll of the Chairman to consider terms of settlement of the s t r i k e .” From,.the Waterfront Workers’ Federation John P . lie Laugh-l i n , Paul Sclierrenberg, R .P . Corrie, J . D . ^arnes and J .F # Clerk were named to serve. E. iillison of the S a i l o r s ’ Union was secretary of the organization. San Francisco longshoremen Return to »ork The employers refused to meet the longshoremen, announc- 363 ing that employers in Northern ports had withdrawn from the San Francisco negotiations, The conference proposed that San Francisco longshoremen return to work July 17th under the agreement in effect prior to the s t r ik e , and representatives of the Waterfront ’‘orkers* federation, Biggers and Stevedores, striking locals and the Waterfront Employers* • Union meet August 1st to adjust wages and working conditions, effective August 1 s t . Members of the V/aterfront Employers * union agreed to employ union men in other ports direct i f local employers ft ile d xo reacja agreements with longshoremen* San Francisco accepted the compromise proposal and returned to work, except those employed by the lumber carriers, who, it was rumored, had turned th e ir settlement over to the Law and °rder Committee. i-ost of the other locals on the Coast rejected the terms, regarding the San Francisco se ttlement as a breach of faith * 1’he diggers and Stevedores of Sen Francisco withdrew from the d is t r ic t , remaining an independent orgenizati on, a s a result of a conference between the San Francisco longshoremen, the Waterfront Workers* Federation and the waterfront employers, wages were settled at 50 cents per hour and 75 cents overtime, and 55 cents per hour and 82$ cents overtime, working conditions to remain the same and union men to be employed when a v a ila b le . Strike Lost The distric t paid out i‘2 2 ,455 to the locals in strike b e n e fits . Beyond dispute the longshoremen lost the s t r i k e . 364 They contended that had the teamsters been entirely organised, or had the seamen consistently supported them by refusing to work with scabs, they might have won. Lacking both, the strike was hopeless* *n some ports sailors refused to $ork in the same hatch with scabs, a type of support; but in other cases they worked with scabs* October 16th the Sailors9 Onion donated $1^00 to the longshoremen still on strike at San Francisco, and resolved: "That we reiterate our propositi cm that we will accept lumber and other cargo from anybody and give it to anybody; further "Resolved, That on board of the vessels we will work with anybody with whom we were working prior to June first, 1916; and farther "Resolved, That we call upon the owners of vessels to permit the masters to engage such men to work on board the vessels or that th$y be hired in suoh a way that inexperienced and therefore dangerous men be not sent on board vessels to work with us afe long as experienced m n can be obtained*" ^ouga&l criticised the longshoreman for not returning to work when they could have secured most favorable terms, in the early days of the strike* In iiov ember, 1916, the San ^©dro longshoremen returned to work without gaining anything* Puget Sound locals followed, defeated* Longshore lumbermen returned to work at San Francisco with the understanding that they would not be compelled to hire through a central office, but would be employed directly by Individual employers on the 365 Job, gjgarag& SsaflUft tm The Pacific Coast district faced a serious condition in 1917 as a result of the strike. All locals reported poor working conditions on the waterfronts; scabs prevalent; few companies hiring union men; and widespread discrimination* Some locale found it hard to maintain their organizations* Finances were low, and a strike fund badly needed* In many ports employers maintained employment offices, fink halls, and compelled longshoremen to hire through them* Other companies hired men individually* Most employers made it a rule not to hire more than 60 per bent union men at one time* Longshore* men charged that the I*W*W# worked out of the fink hells, and were used by employers to disrupt the I*L*A* As a result of a conference between employers, the I*L .A . and representatives of the government, the ^ational Adjustment Commission was created, with commissioners in the principal ports* Although Atlantic and Gulf employers aoeepted it, waterfront employers on the Pacific Coast refused to cooperate because the I*L*A* was recognized by it* After some modification they accepted, but discrimination against union men did not cease* In Tacoma in 1917 the fink hall was abolished, and a gftrernm&nt hiring hall in charge of two I*L*A* men established* A scale of wages and conditions was drawn up in °otc&er, 1917, and submitted to the employers, who refused to accept either the longshoremenfs proposals or the findings of the ^tio n a l Commission* 306 After several years of open-shop conditions Seattle long* shoreman were able to negotiate an agreement with employers early In 1919. Several days later the Seattle shipyards struck. Although the majority of Seattle longshore locals were against the general strike, they obeyed the Central ^-abor Council's strike call* After the strike the employers again tried to set up hiring halls* Tacoma reached an agreement with the saployers early in 1919, and In August of that yee$ secured 90 cents an hour for general cargo work and Improved conditions. In August, 1919, longshoreman of San *edro and San Diego reached an agreement with acifle Steamship Co*, and the rest T? of the Coast9 with the exception of Grays harbor, was In good condition* Shen Sen Francisco longshoremen struck in September 9 1919, the Journal claimed that the strike was not for wages or the closed shop, but for enforcement of certain work* ing rulesf and accused the longshoremen of disregarding their agreements and using I*W*W# tactics* The seamen offered no support, and by Beeeiitoer the strike was called off* The employers reestablished open-shop conditions as a result of the strike* and organized the Blue Book union* By 1920 the Pacific Coast District numbered about 8*000* Transport SaSiSSS' Despite the sailors* refusal, as expressed repeatedly by Andrew I^uruseth, to amalgamate or federate, Pacific Coast longshoremen resolved in 1917 to organize a transport workers' federation on the Pacific Coast, and ask amalgamation of Pacific Coast longshoremen and the Sailors' Union through the 367 American federation of Itebor* Ts© years later a referendum of the Pacific Coast district longshoremen gave 1,806 to 369 for a Transport Sorter©* Federation similar to the One Big Union movement cf Canada, indicating lack of confidence in International affiliation* The district convention of that year resolved: "Whereas, We believe that the sal lore are the most closely allied, inasmuch as they are the means of navigating the ships and transporting the cargoes from one port to another, and as m have found in the past ships being loaded by our enemies and being navigated and handled by union sailors, and we have also seen the time when the sailors were on strike to better their conditions, and the ships beicg manned and navigated by their enemies and the cargoes being loaded and unloaded by union longshoreman, and as we realise that such a eon* ditlon should not be allowed to continue, therefore be It Resolved, That the Twentieth Annual Convention of the Paelflo Coast District, I«L»£*, instruct its delegates to the International Convention, to be held In Galveston in July, 19X9, to introduce at said Convention a Resolution to the effect that the International Longshoremen's Association open negotiations with the international Seamen's Union of America with the view to effecting the amalgamation of the t^o Internet locals." And agalns "Resolved, That this Convention instruct each iioeal to elect a Committee to attend meetings of Sailors, Fireman and all Maritime Unions, if possible, and also in- 368 Vito a Committee from thorn to attend and address our meet* ings, with the end is view of setting in closer touch with each other along Industrial lines*” By way of reply the Journal commented on an address by Joseph Taylor t president of the Pacific Coast District, I*L .A *t shortly after the conventions "There is sobs thing distinctly pathetic about the manner in which the Pacific Coast longshoremen have from tizne to time attempted, *in the name of industrial unionism*, to as* similate the organised seamen* w* » * From one end of the **acif io Coast to the other they are organized in 'locals1 whereas the seamen have for decades had a real fone M g union * , embracing all the seamen along the Pacific Coast* * * * nIt is afpopos in this connection to point to the fact that while the longshoremen are 'talkingf, genuine and emphatically practical industrial unionism is again being furthered by the organised seamen of the Pacific Coast through the contemplated alliance of all men aboard ship* The two orgsnisatl one of licensed men, engineers and deck officers, have not always corked in harmony with each other nor in cooperation Kith sailors9 firemen and cooiss. In the future, it is hoped, things will be different in this respect* Slowly but surely, the links of a chain are being forged which will solidify all the toilers of the sea** 369 CHAFFER IX THE LA FOLLETTE SEAMEN*3 ACT SBAi££H ADD LI2GISLATI0N— 1899-1911 ftto^uire and ,;hlte Actc&nfor cement xii the years following the passage of the Maguire and White Acts the seamen succeeded in enforcing their major PftfVtswn s pfovisions by court a c tio n . Shipowners, shipmasters and crimps ignored the laws entirely until thus compelled to obey them. Allotment in coastwise trade and allotment in excess of one month’ s wages in foreign trade were outlawed by suits for payment of wages legrlly due. .hen shipowners recognized that they would be obliged to pay il le g a l allotment over again they ceased trying to circumvent the law. Commissioner of Navigation Chamberlain reported that allotments to creditors in 1902 were 4 ,4 5 4 , as against 1 ,4 9 3 in 1 9 08. Desertions showed a steady decline from 4 . 3 in 1903 to 1 .9 1 in 1 9 0 8 . Crimps were fined for charging ille g a l shipping and car- « tage fe e s , for holding seamen s clothes and for stealing sail-ors; a vessel was fined for allowing alie n seamen to go ashore before the Customs inspection. To prevent shanghaiing the lawful procedure was upheld for signing on seamen. Seamen’ s wages were protected by successful l ib e l actions against vessels, and decisions were rendered that wages must be paid 370 from the time ordered ©a board9 end for overtime work* Buekolsm was greatly reduced by successful convictions, damage suite and floes* In 1910 the crew of the Babcock. tried for mutiny, sere found not guilty because cruel treatment justified their refusal to work* Damage suits by seamen established the principle that e vessel must put into the nearest port far aid to Injured seamen* However, the courts ruled that the master of a vessel was a fellow servant 0 and therefore not liable for damages through neglect* In 1907 the first mate of the barkentlne Fullsrton m s awarded §17,000 damages for personal Injuries received through defective equipment. About the same time the Supreme Court ruled In the Qg-ceola case: that the vessel and omers were liable if a seaman fall sick or is wounded in the sarvice to the extent of maintenance and cars* and to his wages at least so long as the voyage.is continued; that the vessel and owners were liable to Indemnities for injuries received by a seaman through unseaworthiness or defective appliances; that mom* bers of the erew with the exception of the master were fellow servants so nor^damages were recoverable from accidents through their fault, beyond maintenance and care; end that a seaman is not allowed to recover an Indemnity for negligence of master or crew members, but is entitled to maintenance and cere whether injuries were received by negligence or accident* In 1910 a decision was rendered that a seaman was entitled to treatment for an injury even if no one else was 371 negligent, or if ha himself was negligent, but not grossly negligent* The seaman won an important point when the Supreme Court ruled that American laws applied to foreign seamen on foreign vessels in ^merioan harbors* however, son© years later, it ruled that authorities had the right to arrest and detain a foreign seamen charged with an offense against the laws of the eounlty to whieh his vessel belonged, at the pleasure of the ooneul for net over two months, upholding the treaties for the arrest and return of deserting foreign seamen by the m&vlQW Government* ,/ • ks£2SZ. ££. Sea But if conditions had been improved somewhat in matters affected by seamsn9s legislation, they had become infinitely worse in all things left to the diseretion of the shipewx»rs* The most glaring example of this was the disregard for safety* Losses on sailing vessels for 1098 were 7*36 per oent of the number and 6*43 per oent of the tonnage, and on steam vessels 1*79 per cent of the nusfeer and 1*68 per oent of the tonnage in the United States* fourteen steam vessels and 172 sailing vessels were lost* In 1900 Amerlean vessels were reported the shortest«lived and most lost yearly * 4*06 per eent of the steamers and 5*45 per eent of the sailiog vessels, with 18 years average life, as against 1*96 per eent steamers, 3*2 per oent sailing ves* sels and 30 years for Scandinavian; and 1*74 per eent, 2*94 per eent, and 28 years for Italian vessels* Out of an estim- 372 a ted 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 seamen employed in the United States, 5 6 ,3 5 5 received medical treatment, 1 2 ,9 0 4 in h o sp ita ls, indicating negligence o f the owners. The Prudential L ife Insurance Co. in 1916 quoted accidents among seamen at 17 per cent, as against 1 0 .5 per cent for the general population. In 1 9 0 3 , 487 vessels with 117 lives were lo s t , over one-sixth by overloading* Fire accounted for H E , often caused by improperly stored cargoes. One steamer was 42 years old, and sailing vessels ranged from 27 to 52 y e ars. The high losses also indicated undermanning. In 1901 the Islander struck a submerged iceberg and went down with a loss of 40 some live s, because the vessel was trying to make time on orders from the company in dangerous Alaskan waters. January 3 , 1904, the ^ la I I am was lost with 50 l i v e s , some of which might have been saved by a competent cre?u The General Sloe urn burned and sank in ^ew ^ork Harbor June 1 5 , 19 04, resulting in the loss of 955 l i v e s . The Federal investigation found: "That the in effic ien c y and poor quality of the deci: crew, doubt loss typical of the majority of the crews of excursion steamers, is one of the essential facts that caused the loss of so many l i v e s . ” Although he merely acted under instructions of the company, Captain Van Schaick was sentenced to ten years because he was le g ally responsible for the lack of proper equipment; he was parol-led after serving three years. As a result of the General 31 ocurn disaster the Steamboat Inspection Service was over- hauled, and 268 vessels that had previously been passed were found to have faulty lifesaving equipment. But nothing was done to compel the employment, of sailors instead of roustabouts. i-n the investigation cf the larchmort cr se the pilot was blamed end the captain exonerated, although the incompetent ere** were really to bleme for the loss cf l i f e after the c o llis io n . In 1908 the Pomona was wrecked because the master on orders of the owners hugged the shore too closely . The crew of the Indjane mutinied in 1909, refusing to go to sea because she was too heavily loaded and unseaworthy. In June, 1 9 0 7 , in a collision between the steamers San ^edro and Columbia, the latter was sunk with e loss of many passengers and crew. Claims of $ 2 3 4 ,8 4 1 .4 5 were proved, and actual losses were half a million d o llars. The Columbia *s owners limited lia b il it y to practically nothing, and the San frearo *s owners to $ 1 6 ,5 0 0 , the value of the vessels after the c o llis io n . Those who proved clsl ms received about 8 per cent of the amount allowed them. Judge Dooling said in a decision against the petition of Pac ific Coast Steamship Company for limitation of l i a b i l ity in the wreck of the Santa l.osa o ff r oint Arguello in J u ly , 1911, in which the company sought to limit l i a b i l it y to $ 3 , 5 6 3 . 6 6 , the value of the wrecked vessel and freight pending, when claims of survivors and relatives of persons lost aggregated about # 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 : "The number of vessels that go ashore in a fog with 374 nothing the Batter with their motive power, and while under full control, affords grave reasons for Inquiry as to whether the risks undertaken by their masters in thus hugging the shore is not undertaken with the knowledge and consent, if not the express orders, of their owners, either for the purpose of shortening the tin© of the voyage, or for some other purpose not disclosed or apparent* "The safety of the thousands of persons ^ho travel up and dom this coast requires that the Court should not lis-ten with over-eager ears to the excuse offered for the loss of vessels which should never have occurred, or to the gen* eral disclaimer "responsibility for wrecks which could so vv easily have been avoided• ” Shipowners resorted to all Banner of deceptions and patching rotten parts to deceive the steamboat inspectors. At Victoria, B��C«, in 1904, a piece of iron was discovered in the cork of a lifebuoy to make up the required weight. The Journal reported several San Francisco firms made a practice of recovering life preservers stamped "condemned” with new canvas* In February, 1904, the Union eited sixteen vessels fined by the Collector of Customs at Port Townsend for violating rules to prevent collisions between steamers, and ten fined |900 each for violating the navigation laws* When wireless was coming into use in 1909 Pacific Mail Steamship Company conceded that it might be an advantage on some vessels, but it was not necessary on transpacific steamers of that company* Two years lster the Department of Com- 375 mere© and Labor ordered all vessels carrying passengers and crew of over 50 on voyages over 200 miles to earry wireless# In 1911 underOTiters agreed not to insure old sailing vessels9 so unseaworthy had they becos© * Tow barges cm the Atlantic Coast and ocean towing of log rafts on the Paeif ie Coast menaced navigation and lives. In 1899 the California ^arbor ^o. 15 of the Masters and Pilots of Steam Vessels sought cooperation in a protest against the dangers to navigation from the log rafts* Of four Hammond rafts towed in 1011, two broke up* one with 5,000 logs^ and another on Peacock Spit at the mouth of the Columbia River with 6,000*000 feet* One log head-on would be suffieient to sink a vessel* As a result of the losses, owners, under* writers and navigators proposed a ban on croaetwise log rafts* Two bargee came into general use on the Atlantic Coast around 1900 for hauling eoal and other bulk cargoes* The Boston Advertiser said in 1902* "tfhet is a barge? It is a big lumbering scow good enough for use on a canal, but a death trap at sea* Often the barge is made of the hull of an old ocean ship that has been con*. j damned as unsafe* * * * "So many barges are lost because nothing but a miracle can save a heavily loaded barge that la caught out far from land in a big storm* No rope will hold her; no tug can puli her to safety; If the usual number of barges are being towed* The barge breaks loose, swashes around in the trough of the waves until she fills and sinks, or else is driven ashore 376 Into the breakers end is slowly broken up by the sledge hammer blows of the surf*" Barges were towed up to six in a string, without rigging or sail, manned by four m n and a master* In rough weather the tug was often forced to out the string loose to save it** self when the barges became unmanageable, abandoning them to drift out to open sea or shoreward, a danger to navigation and a ooffin for the crews* In spite of the frequent losses, owners favoired barge towing because it saved fuel and labor costs of transportation* In 1901 Standard Oil was only prevented from towing across the Atlantic by its inability to find an insurance coinpan# Willing to take the risk, a difficulty that barge owners frequently experienced on the Atlantic Coast, also* On the f ^ i f i o Coast barges Here used during the Gold Hush to tow freight to Alaska* The following figures of lives lost at sea all over the 377 world were published in the Journal in August. 1914: Tears Lives lost 1860*1804 1,018 1865-1869 1,895 1870*1874 2,502 1875*1879 2,570 1880-1884 2,570 1889-1889 2,645 1890*1894 2,654 1895*1899 2,658 1900-1904 3,165 1905-1909 4,388 1909-1914 (4 years, 5 months} 5,445 Total 31,300 ✓ Chinese Crews Chinese crews on the Pacific Coast were protected by courts and government officials* In 1900 Judge Hanford ruled that Chinese semen were exempt from the Exelusion Act* Shipowners succeeded in having Chinese seamen exempted from the provision© of the Chinese Exclusion Act of April 86, 1902* A few months after the Exclusion Act became law the Sailors* union protested against a crew of Chinese being shipped in Hong ^ong on the steamer Cits of Pafclna for ?ac-ifio Mail’ s new steamer Korea> The City of *elclng» on which the Chinese were taken as passengers in addition to the regular crew, had an accident and put back to ^ b e # The Chinese for the Korea were transferred to the British ship Gaelic* The Attorney General ruled that the crew could be transferred to the Korea if shipped before a shipping commissioner; that the Alien Contract *&bor ^aw didn't apply to Chinese * or other alien seamen; and that they were not violating the Kxelusion Act if they were landed merely to be reshipped. Furuseth protested the opinion to ^resident Roosevelt, contending that the Attorney General had based his opinion on the wrong facts, that while the law Blight permit the master of the Citv of ^eklng to ship Chinese in Hong Kong and carry them, it did not allow him to ship them for another vessel; that the Contract labor ^aw didn’ t exclude Chinese 378 from Its provisions, and being passed a year later, repealed any oonflletlx^ parts of previous legislation. The seamen were as much laborers and part of the population as anyone. She Union submitted that eeoh Chinese violated the Exclusion Act when they went from one vessel to another in San Francisco, and that when they manned the Korea in San Franoisco they violated the Contract Labor Laws. In 1904 Andrew Furuseth sued ^aeif ie Mail on behalf of the Sailors* Union for §803,000 damages of |1,000 apieee for each of 803 members of the orew of the steamer Manchuria vfoo were shipped in Hong Kong on the Siberia and transferred to ^anob^ylft in San Franoisco, charging violation of the Contrast Labor and Sxolusion Laws. Paul Scharrenberg filed suit in 1914 against the Dollar Line for #19,000 das&ges for importing Chinese on the British ship Bessie Dollar and transferring them to the ^erlean steamer %eklnaw« charging violation of the Alien Contract ^abor Law. iihile the suit was pending the Mackinaw remained out of American waters, having lumber cargoes scowed from Bellingham to British Columbia. Federal Judge Pooling sustained the demurrer of the dollar Steamship Company against the complaint, in direct contradiction to the ruling of Judge Do Haven in the suit by Furuseth against Pacific Mail, legalizing the Importation of Chinese for American vessels in American ports. In Oetbber, 1917, the Supreme Court decided in the ease of Scharrenberg vs* the Dollar Lin© that the Allen Contract 379 Labor ^aw was not meant to protect seamen and dollar was v/ith-in his legal rights in importing Chinese, on the ground that seamen were not laborers and not inhabitants of the country under whose fIt g they earned their l iv i n g . By 1905 about 2 ,0 0 0 Chinese were employed on American v essels, principally those of the I/ollar ^ine and P acific l.ail, shipped at a ong *»ong at '7 .5 0 a month for sailors and &9 for firemen. In June, 1907, Solicitor i^arl of the Department of Commerce and Labor ruled against the use of Chinese crews in coastwise trade, the courts having previously ruled that alien seamen in that trade were immigrants. A few months later the Straus ruling declared employment of Chinese on Pacific ^ a i l vessels le g al, but barred them from coastwise trade, iiarly in 1911 another court decision that a seaman is not a laborer, and therefore Chinese employed on vessels did nrt come within the meaning of the Chinese exclusion ^ ct further established their le g a lit y . During 1S16 Pacific L o ll imported Chinese crews for the ii>cudor, the Venezuela and the lt.d Colombia (in inarch, 1 9 1 7 ). Two suits were rSmBO against Grace -Cine and P a c ific -ail for violation of the Contract -i-fibor Law. In A p r i l , 1918, the Sailors* 'Union protested against the steamer Stanley ^oli&r being manned by a crew of Chinese imported for that purpose while under time charter to the ^hipping ^oard. The following month the China Mail Steamship Co. imported about 150 Chinese for the Steamship banking. 380 Thus the question stood: Chinese might be shipped abroad under the navigation laws on American vessels in foreign trade, transshipped to other American vessels, and held prisoners in American ports under the Immigration Laws and the Chinese Exclusion Act* The courts and the iDepartment of Commerce refused to apply the laws goverfilgg their exclusion or the Contract Labor Law to them* But Chinese crews were specifically excluded from coastwise trade* The only deterrent to the employment of Chinese crews was the refusal of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in 1904 to limit liability in the City of Rio de Jan-lero case* February 22, 1901, the steamer City of Bio de Janiero of Pacific Mail Steamship Company sank In San Francisco Bay with a loss of 131 lives* It carried eleven lifeboats, ample for the 811 persons on board* ®f the officers and white crew 13 were saved and 18 lost; of the passengers 24 were saved and 72 lost; and of the Chinese orew 43 were saved and 41 lost* ay 9, 1904, the Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition of Pacific Mall for limitation of liability, saying in part: * * * * * The sailors could not understand the language in which the orders of the officers in command of the respective boats had to be given* It was too dark to see signs (if signs eould have been intelligibly given), and only one of the two Chinese who spoke English appears to have known anything about the lowering of a boat; and there had been no drill of the crew in the matter of lowering them* Under 381 such circumstances, it is not surprising that but three of the boots were lowered, one of ?&ioh m s successfully launched by the efforts of Of fleer Goughian and the shlpfs carpenter 9 another of which was swamped by one of the Chinese crew letting the after fall down with a run, and the third of which was lowered so slowly that it was swamped as the ship went dam* We have no hesitation in holding that the ship was insufficiently manned* for the reason that the sailors were unable to understand: and execute the orders made imperative by the exigency that unhappily arose, and resulted so dlsester-ouely to life , as well as to property*w Therefore the owners were responsible* The decision was the first instance since 1855 in s&ich the statutory limitation of liability had been removed. The Supreme Court refused to review the decision* It remains d the established policy of Pacific Mail and the Dollar l*ine to use Chinese as extensively as possible, regardless of safety, immigration policies, wage standards, or the effects on the American merchant marine* State Fugitive Sallsc tews Although the % i t e Act repealed penalties for desertion in domestic ports, fugitive sailor laws in Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon and California providing penalties for enticing seamen to desert and harboring deserting seamen regained in force. Originally passed to check crimping, after passage cf the Federal law they nullified the seamenfs right to quit, and could be used against strikers, as in Massachu- setts in 1 9 0 4 . In 1903 the Sailors* Union attempted unsuccessfully to have the California state 1b gislature repeal the fugitive sailor laws. Four years later the legislature passed b i l l s repealing the sections relative to enticing and aiding seamen to desert, with the cooperation of the Shipowners' Association through Faroes Tyson of Charles ^elson Company. After the b i l l s passed the shipowners reversed their stand and tried to prevent Governor Gillett from signing them. Furuseth in a memorandum to the Governor set forth the effe cts of the laws and urged their repeal. Governor G ille tt signed the b i l l abolishing penalties for harboring deserting seamen, but pocketed the b i l l rbol-ishing penalties for enticing seamen to de s e r t, in 1909 the legislature pessed the b i l l , and again G ille tt vetoed i t . The Journal protested indignantly that the law was a permanent injunction against union sailors to protect scabs. "This law is intended to grease the thorny path of shipowners who may be trying to enforce a lockout or break a strike through the use of strikebreakers. . . . "The Crimp law makes it much easier to impress and retain on board unsuspecting victims than it would i f the launch of the Sailors* Union were free to draw up alongside the vessel and volunteer to free such men or to inform them of the ex istence of a strike or lo ck o u t." Governor G ille tt beseidhis veto on the fact that trouble 383 had occurred in the past between seamen and scabs, and was likely to occur in the future* ^ver the b itte r opposition of the Shipowners * association the b ill passed the third time in 1 9 1 1 . Governor niram Johnson signed i t , declaring: "This lav/ supplied the only instance in our statutes where a breach of contract was made a f e l o n y ." California raised the exemption from attaclmont of wages for seamen and fishermen from *100 to &300 in 1 9 0 3 . Seamen opposed a b i l l introduced in 1911 to permit a master to determine who should have the right to board a v e s s e l , and nuking it a misdemeanor to board without his consent. A similar b i l l in Congress previously had fa il e d to pass. In 'Washington in 1907 the sailors sponsored e b i l l for repeal of the fugitive sailor laws. Furuseth secured endorsements from Talbot of Pope and Talbot, ^orr of Alaska ^ackers, Rolph, Pennel, Sudden and Christiansen and John A . Hooper, which were forwarded to the le g is la tu r e . The b i l l was defeated on the argument that the laws were for the owners* protection against crimps. In 1909 the union secured repeal of the laws. Crimping v/as as strongly entrenched in Portland as any port in the United States. In 1903 the Oregon legislature passed a law licensing crimps, over the seamen's opposition, i&o contended that it would legalize the system and f a i l to protect sa ilo rs . The lew operated as the seamen had predicted, and the following year the Union secured support of the °re- £on State Federation of Labor in a campaign for it s repeal. Actually it aided crimps, because sailors could live only in licensed boarding-houses. Under tie law Pa* t land was notorious for desertions, shanghaiing and exorbitant advance and blood money. In 1911 D.vs. Paul, Portland agent for the Sailors* Union, te stifie d before the House Committee on merchant Marine and fis h e r ie s that the state lav/ compelled every fo re ig n ship to pay a bonus on each m^n shipped. The Union had an agreement with several British ships to take men from the Union, but Gangong of the Boarding House Commission informed the agent that he would have to get a boarding-house license and charge the master £10 per man. The Union r e fu se d . The seamen introduced a b i l l in the uregon state le g islature in 1907 to repeal the fugitive sailor laws and the law providing thet no more than f3G blood money might be charged. The la tte r , in e ffe c t, legalized <,'30 blood money with ( 2 5 advance, permitting crimps to take §55 from a s a ilo r . Longshoremen fs representatives, the British Consul and the Chamber of Commerce fought the, b i l l . Furuseth charged that crimps were using the longshoremen. The Chamber of Commerce opposed the b i l l because it was trying to work with the In ternational Shipowners* Association to get the 30 cents per ton freight d i f f e r e n t ia l on wheat against Portland removed. The S a il o r s ’ Union could do nothing. •*hen the Sailors* union sponsored a similar b i l l in the state legislature in 1909 the longshoremen again opposed i t , on the pretext that it would ieave deep water sailors at the 385 mercy of erimps, and were successful in preventing the Oregon State Federation of 1-abor from supporting the seamen# In Mmm&bMmttB in 1904 the Atlantic Carriers used fugitive sailor laws to have Atlantic Coast Seamen's Union members Imprisoned. The following year the Union began a campaign for repeal of the Haws, sahile the ease was still in the state court** ¥he Governor vetoed the seamen's bill repealing the statutes in 1909, but a year later the fugitive sailor laws were repealed* At different times the organised fishenssn appealed to the state legislatures for laws promoting the Industry from destruction by the large packers and relief from unjust statutes, with some success. Shipowners* JSSSfiSJBSSw ^ mmlJeSUgtSiOSsSmlSa^ tion Shipowners* legieletive efforts between 1900 and 1911 were d ilu te d toward two objectives: more liberal subsidies from the Govarniaent and restoration of seamen to their former status by repeal of protective legislation* The Sailors* tfnion consistently opposed increased subsidies, contending rather that the supposed Inability of American shipowners to compete with foreign owners arose from ship registry laws that admitted only Amarieanobuilt ships to •“Earican registry, and enabled the steel trust and shipbuilders to forae shipowners to pay mere for vessels thsn they would have had to in an open market* Tbe inereased coat of Affl&risen ships, seamen maintained, was not because of actual production coats, for shipbuilders "by their own admis386 sion (are) abl& to underbid the shipbuilders cf Burope"t nor to higher Arnerieon labor standards, for hours of labor ware shorter on the Clyde than in %eriean yards, but to the steel trust's exorbitant profits. The season insisted that to rehabilitate the merohant marine a program to induce Americana to return to the sea was necessary* Only 8 par eent native <%©rieans were among the 1009000 seamen employed on %erioan vessels, exolusive of the I lakes* Shipowners mve receiving aim million do liars m year in subsidies, and the Act of 1884 permitting them to ai&a seamen in foreign ports for the round trip removed the wage differential that omers claimed operated against them* Ana&rlean vessels carried from 10 to SO per eent more cargo because there m s no load limit, and hence made more profit; they carried trm 10 to 20 per cent smaller crews for their else, and hence cost leas to runs and ports in American possessions such as the Philippines and Guam were opes only to American vessels and therefore reserved to them without competition* Shipowners ergued that American seamen's wages were substantially higher than those in European countries, but the seamen replied that sages were determined by port and not by nationality, and therefore American owners in foreign trade were at no disadvantage in securing cheap labor* American shipping had disappeared not because of Its inability to compete in foreign trade, but because ^merlean capital had found more profitable investments ashore* 38? Two years after the ^hite Act was passed shipowners be-gen their campaign to nullify seamen#s le g is la t io n , attacking fir s t through a b i l l proposed by Senator I’’rye purporting to exclude crimps from boarding ships, but intended to prevent union delegates and officers from v is it in g them* Labor joined the seamen in protesting against the b i l l , with the result that Furuseth secured the in sertio n, Tf arriving b e fore such vessels have been properly inspected and pieced in security" that would exclude crimps who boarded the ship as soon as it entered the harbor, but not union representatives, who would be able to contact the crew after the vsssel was docked and inspected. The b i l l passed as amended. The shipowners tried unsuccessfully to reintroduce imprisonment for desertion in the coastwise trade in 1902 by a b i l l Introduced by Representative Allen of ^ a i n e . Just before Congress adjourned in February, 1 9 0 3 , the shipowners sneaked a b i l l drawn up by Commissioner of Navigation Chamberlain and introduced by Senator L*’rye restoring allotment in coastwise trade through the Senate without the seamen’ s knowledge, and had a similar b i l l reported favorably in the House. Tracy, legislative rex;resentative of the American Federation of Mibor, discovered the b i l l , and ti;e seamen hastily organized a protest against i t . P a c ific Coast shipowners n o tifie d Frye that they were opposed to reenactment of allotment because it would encourage desertion and delay vessels in getting new men; the Atlantic Carriers supported the b i l l . Outright p o lit ic a l chicanery of Frye and others 383 failed to get it through the House. £ s a s s & '£ S t i S - a S S S r i S i l #*• But if seamen were able through widespread publicity, united aM Jteueett^ ooastant effort In Washington to protect their legislation of 189S and 1698, shipowners were equally able for over a decade to prevent seamen from securing the remaining necessary legislation* The Journal declared in 1899: "Allotment is theftj imprisonment for desertion is slavery buckoism is assault* So far the meritim© law has stipulated that these crimes may be perpetrated to a certain extent. It should provide for their total prohibition* Until it does, the lawmakers must shoulder responsibility with the criminals themselves, and to an even greater degree." In 1000 Representative Chandler of ^ew York introduced a bill providing for a nine-hour day in port, half pay on demand in any port, a manning scale, abolition of advance, enlarged forecastles, and abolition of Imprisonment for desertion in foreign ports. Congress took no action on the b ill, and it was not reintroduced in 1902 because no republicans would touch i t , and to have had the minority party introduce it would have precluded defeat* As
|
|---|