SEC. 2. That the United States Shipping Board is hereby authorized and directed to deliver the said steamship Martha Washington in good order and condition and free and clear of liens to the said Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione at the first port at which she shall arrive after the passage of this act, or, if that be inconvenient, at such other port as may be mutually agreed upon by the United States Shipping Board and said Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione. SEC. 3. That the United States Shipping Board is further authorized and directed to determine and to award to Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione just compensation for the use of the said steamship from May 11, 1918, to the date of delivery thereof as above provided. SEC. 4. That the United States Shipping Board is further authorized and directed to pay the amount awarded to Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione, out of any unexpended moneys now or hereafter appropriated, for the payment of claims or compensation for the use of vessels. Mr. COOPER. What was done with that? Mr. DAVIS. There were hearings held on it, a copy of which hearings I wish to insert as an exhibit in the record. However, I wish to read briefly from it. These hearings were held on Wednesday, December 15, 1920, before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives, and I wish to simply first read the heading of the printed report of the hearings," Transfer of steamship Martha Washington." This was before Hon. Charles E. Hughes became Secretary of State. That was the 4th of March following this. Mr. COOPER. The hearing was three months before that? Mr. DAVIS. Three months before he became Secretary of State. [Reading:] 66 COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., December 15, 1929. The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., Hon. William S. Greene (chairman) presiding. Present: Members of the committee; also Hon. Charles E. Hughes and Edward Sandford, Esq., appearing as counsel on behalf of Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione. The CHAIRMAN. We are ready to hear you, Judge Hughes, upon bill H. R. 14895, which follows. Mr. COOPER. That is the bill you just read? Mr. DAVIS. That is the bill, and it is set forth in these hearings. Then follows: STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. HUGHES ON BEHALF OF COSULICH SOCIETA TRIESTINA DI NAVIGAZIONE Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear on behalf of the Italian corporation, the Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione, in support of H. R. 14895, which provides for the transfer of the steamer Martha Washington to this corporation and for the payment of just compensation. I am going to insert all of this in the record. I only want to read certain extracts from it. Mr. COOPER. This statement of Mr. Hughes was as attorney for the corporation, was it? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, and so states in the hearings, and, as I will later show, he filed with us a brief, a printed brief, in which he appears on it as counsel. He appeared in person before us. I was present myself, and the records show that the committee was present and he made the verbal statement and filed a brief, and also a memorandum which I will insert now. Among other things Mr. Hughes said: The ship was very properly seized, and there is no question at all here with regard to the legality of the seizure. After explaining the question of the claim for compensation for the use of her before she was formally seized as an enemy ship and the payment thereof, he proceeds: Now, the Shipping Board also had before it the application for the return of the vessel and for compensation after that date. That is after May 11, 1918. [Continuing reading:] But the Shipping Board took the position that that was not a question for it to determine. You will observe what was said in the first paragraph of this report-that is, the first paragraph of the recommendation at the end of the report on page 23: After hearing and consideration of the claim, this committee recommends that the claimants be remitted to the State Department to esablish the Italian citizenship of the claimant as a prerequisite to the delivery of the vessel and compensation therefor after May 11, 1918. That is on page 5 of this hearing. You see, they were coming along and claiming that it was now an Italian corporation, because Trieste, the port from which this vessel was sailing under the Austrian flag had been taken over as part of the spoils of war by Italy, and they claimed that, as it was an Italian subject, we ought to treat it differently from the way we would treat an enemy vessel. Then he goes on: Thereupon the matter was taken up with the State Department and, as I understand it, the State Department was satisfied as to the Italian character of the corporation and that the matter should be proceeded with upon the assumption that this was an Italian corporation. The State Department, however, took the view that the effect of this Executive order, under the authority of the joint resolution of Congress, was to vest the title in the United States; consequently, the title being vested in the United States, it was not for the Executive to transfer the title. Mr. COOPER. Who was the head of the State Department when that decision was made? That was the last year of the Wilson administration. Mr. DAVIS. It was during the Wilson administration. I think it was Colby. The other records will show, I have correspondence in which they took it up. Mr. COOPER. And the State Department then held what? Mr. DAVIS. The State Department, however, took the view that the effect-now remember, this is Mr. Hughes talking here— The State Department, however, took the view that the effect of this Executive order That is, the Executive order taking over this enemy vesselunder the authority of the joint resolution of Congress, was to vest the title in the United States; consequently, the title being vested in the United States, it was not for the Executive to transfer the title; that that was beyond the power of the Executive, and, of course, was hence a matter with which the department was not concerned. So that the title having vested in the United States. it is Congress alone that can transfer title, and the whole question, therefore, comes before Congress in the presentation of this bill. Mr. COOPER. That was the language of Secretary Hughes-or Mr. Hughes? Mr. DAVIS. That was the language of Mr. Hughes at that time. Mr. DAVIS. Made by him personally before the committee. Mr. COOPER. Now, what did Congress do? Congress turned that bill down, did it not? Mr. DAVIS. The fact of the business is, after he testified there was never any action taken on it at all by the committee. That ended it right there. Mr. COOPER. So, according to that, Congress, which haad the sole authority to transfer the title to that ship away from the United States, never acted at all? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. COOPER. And no other authority haad any right to transfer it to anybody. That is right, is it not? Mr. DAVIS. That was the position taken by Mr. Hughes, and the reason given for presenting and urging the passage of the bill, that Congress alone could do it. Mr. COOPER. Yet, it was transferred, as a matter of policy, for $60,000, without any authority in law whatever. Is that it? Mr. DAVIS. I think that is undoubtedly true. That was the position taken by Mr. Hughes himself at that time, as shown by this record. I want to show further that there was no question of the seizure. The hearing continues, page 10: Mr. Davis. Is it your contention that the right of the United States can be altered by a transfer of the stock subsequent to the seizure of the vessel? Mr. HUGHES. Oh, no, My contention is not at all in regard to the power of the United States; my contention is not with regard to anything irregular or illegal or unwarranted in regard to the taking of title to this vessel in May, 1917. My contention is based upon the situation which is now accorded to that vessel, the relation of the Italian Government to that vessel, and the fact that it belongs to an association in Trieste, an Italian corporation, organized by Italians, always controlled by Italians with a very small minority interest not so held. In that connection I want to state that the records show, and he later admits himself, that it was an Austrian corporation chartered under the Austrian Government, flying the Austrian flag, and all of its stock was owned by Austrians. Mr. COOPER. Does that show in that hearing? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; and together with this brief here it gives the names of the stockholders. But understand, where he brings in that Italian business was that they became Italians after Trieste was annexed to Italy, and that is the only way it is made, but in response to my question as to whether the right of the United States can be altered by transfer of stock subsequent to the seizure of the vessel he says "No." He was too good a lawyer to undertake to say anything else. Now he goes on: This question addresses itself broadly to a conception of the broad obligation of the United States from a moral standpoint and what fairness and justice requires in dealing with this vessel. The question is not dealt with at all in a technical spirit nor dealt with in any way to combat the right and propriety of the action of the President at the time title was seized. For instance, Mr. Edmonds, a member of the committee, asked this question: You must agree when we took it we had a right to take it. I want to file a copy of the hearings as an exhibit. (The hearing referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 107-5.") At the time Mr. Hughes appeared before the committee he filed this printed memorandum entitled: "Memorandum in support of House bill No. 14895, introduced by Hon. William S. Greene of Massachusetts." And that memorandum is signed as follows: Respectfully submitted. Charles E. Hughes, of counsel for Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione. DECEMBER 15, 1920. I want to insert that in the record as an exhibit. (The memorandum referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 107-6.") At the same time Mr. Hughes filed with members of the committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries the petition which had previously been presented to the Congress of the United States, and bearing date May 20, 1920, to which reference was made by Mr. McDonald. I want to insert this in the record, but I wish to call attention to the fact that it is a rather elaborate document of 33 pages, and on the outside appears this: In re Steamship Martha Washington-To the Congress of the United States of America-Petition of Cosulich Societa Triestina di Navigazione and memorandum in support of petition-Charles E. Hughes, of counsel for petitioner, 96 Broadway, New York. And then here is the petition, signed by the company and by Charles E. Hughes, "Of counsel for petitioner." I wish to read from the memorandum of Mr. Hughes referred to, under the first paragraph and under the heading "The facts." [Reading:] The passenger steamship Martha Washington was specially designed and built in Glasgow in 1908 for New York-Adriatic service. This steamer was registered at and hailed from Trieste and necessarily flew the Austrian flag. When the war in Europe broke out in 1914 this steamship, by reason of this fact, was liable to capture on the high seas. It was necessary therefore that she remain in New York to avoid capture. On August 31, 1917, before a state of war existed between this country and Austria-Hungary, the United States Shipping Board requisitioned the Martha Washington for use. On May 11, 1918, the President, under authority of the joint resolution of May 12, 1917, requisitioned the steamship for title. I want to call special attention to the fact that Mr. Hughes made this statement, not as a quotation of somebody else, not in quotation marks, but as his own statement of facts, the statement as an attorney for this foreign company in the form of a petition. to the Congress of the United States, and in support of the bill which he was trying to get passed-this statement: The Shipping Board has made award accordingly— That is, for the compensation for the use of her but has no power to make any further award because the President's order of May 11, 1918, vested title in the United States. I want to read a further extract from this petition and memorandum of this company through Mr. Charles E. Hughes, as counsel: On August 31, 1917, before a state of war existed between the United States and Austria, the Martha Washington was requisitioned for use precisely as Dutch steamers, lying idle in New York as a result of war conditions, were also requisitioned. This requisitioning was entirely right and proper, and the United States Shipping Board, to the extent of its power, has awarded just compensation for use. Congress alone, however, has the power to authorize redelivery of the steamship and payment of compensation for use subsequent to May 11, 1918, the date of the President's requisition order. It is not even suggested that the President's order was not an entirely legitimate exercise of the unquestionable war powers of this country. It was an eminently proper exercise of those powers. The congressional debates show that Congress intended to exercise the war powers in the emergency of war and to reserve to itself the right, after the war, to determine all claims to vessels taken over. Now listen to this, quoting further: Neither the Shippng Board nor the State Department nor the President can do anything more. Mr. COOPER. That is the end of the quotation? Mr. DAVIS. That is the end of that quotation. Then, under paragraph III, is this heading in heavy black type: Legislation required to authorize the United States Shipping Board to redeliver the steamship Martha Washington and to award and pay just compensation for use. As has been pointed out, the President's Executive order served as a war measure to vest in the United States title to the Martha Washingon, subject to the power of Congress to determine the final disposition of this steamship after the war. The power of Congress can not be doubted. While the President was authorized to take title, the title so acquired was necessarily subject to the final disposition of the property which the Congress should see fit to make. I want to put this in as an exhibit. (The paper referred to, the petition, was marked "Exhibit No. 107-7.") It will be recalled that Mr. Talbert stated that he transmitted as part of the record the photostats of the letters received from the State Department, and they advise that if anybody wants it, the originals are in their possession and will be produced. I wish to insert all of this in the record, beginning with letters to and from the State Department in 1917. I do not care to read the correspondence with the former State Department, because they had no connection with the matter, but, as stated by Mr. Hughes, the State Department and the Shipping Board at first took the position that they had no authority in the matter, as he states in his brief and stated in person. Mr. COOPER. He actually states that to be the correct position in his brief. Mr. DAVIS. Yes, that is true. Now, I wish to read a letter of July 10, 1922, from William Phillips, Undersecretary of State, in which it is stated that it is" for the Secretary of State." I will ask Mr. Richardson to read this. Mr. RICHARDSON (reading): UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, Washington, D. C. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, GENTLEMEN: Referring to previous correspondence concerning the steamship Martha Washington I beg to inclose for your consideration and such comments as you may care to make copies of two notes, date June 20 and 27, respectively, from the Italian Embassy at Washington in relation to the claim |
