possess considerable discretionary powers in cases of desertion of seamen from foreign vessels, and there appears to be no reason why they should not also be authorized, in cases of desertion from domestic vessels, to determine in the first instance whether the penalty of imprisonment should be enforced. The finding of the commissioner that the imposition of this penalty was unnecessary might well be made final; but should the commissioner find to the contrary trial before the court would properly ensue. One of the gravest causes of complaint on the part of masters and owners, as well as seamen, against the execution of existing laws is the long delay necessarily incident to our present mode of procedure. After the finding of facts by the commissioner, a delay often of one or two months or more ensues before the case is brought for trial before the court, and during this time witnesses have disappeared or the vessel may have left port, thus preventing an exact administration of justice. The law at present provides (Rev. Stat., 4300) that in these cases the district judge shall "forthwith, or as soon as the ordinary business of the court permit," try such cases; but the crowded condition of Federal court calendars is well understood by all. The precise extent to which the powers of the commissioners of the United States circuit courts, or their successors after next June, in the examination of cases concerning seamen should be extended is a matter calling for the closest study of legal minds, and accordingly is made a matter of general rather than of specific recommendation in this report.

It will be conceded by all that the law, which provides ample penalties in the case of the violation of the shipping articles by the owner or master, should also provide sufficient penalty for the violation of those articles by the seaman. Where wages have been earned the forfeiture of these wages may be sufficient, but where wages have not been earned, as in the case of desertions before a vessel is put to sea, it is a mere travesty on law to declare the forfeiture of wages a penalty for such desertion. There appear to be but two means of enforcing the contract-either to place the sailor aboard his vessel with the aid of the police or bestow upon the courts the discretionary power, to be exercised when occasion renders it necessary, to imprison the seaman. As between these two alternatives, both masters and owners and the representatives of seamen, as was brought out at the hearings before the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries at the last session, favor the latter alternative.

LICENSE OF SHIPPING MASTERS.

The offices of the United States shipping commissioners were created to furnish facilities for the employment of seamen on American vessels. Some of the inadequacies of the system were shown in the report of the Bureau for last year, and legislation to remedy them has made good progress, and, it is hoped, will be enacted this year. The business of supplying seamen, however, to a very great extent, is conducted by private persons, and must continue to be so conducted, unless the shipping commissioners' system is greatly extended at considerable expense to the Government. Although the Government maintains offices where owners and masters may secure crews without cost and seamen may obtain employment without charge, neither party makes use of the opportunity to the extent which might be expected. This fact is doubtless due in a great measure to the efforts of middlemen, shipping masters, or, as they are termed by seamen,

"crimps," who engage in the business of supplying crews for vessels. This business is a source of frequent complaint by seamen, and in many instances the complaint is doubtless well founded. It is alleged that by a combination of those engaged in keeping sailors' boarding houses, it is difficult for seamen to obtain employment without directly or indirectly paying for it, and to this extent the law is violated and actual wages are reduced far below nominal wages.

There are two methods of ridding the system of the abuse. The first, and apparently the simplest, is to enforce the law as it stands and secure convictions for its violation in order to deter others from wrongful practices. The endeavor to apply this method has been made for a year and it has not been successful. Seamen who are the victims of illegal practices by shipping masters will not testify, through indifference, or for fear of being "black listed," and without such testimony convictions are impossible. The situation has been explained to leading shipowners and to representatives of the New York and Philadelphia maritime exchanges. The suggestion comes from them and appears entirely reasonable that the remedy lies in a supervision by the Government of the personnel of shipping masters. They propose that those in this business shall be licensed, somewhat in the manner that customs brokers are licensed, and this proposition has been incorporated in S. 2226. The corresponding House bill, H. R. 6399, omits this feature, and by merely restating present law offers no relief from present difficulties in enforcing that law.

ALLOTMENTS OF WAGES.

The subject of allotments of wages was considered at length in the annual report of the Bureau for 1895, and a bill upon the subject was introduced in both branches of Congress last year. All its essential provisions have been incorporated in section 24 of S. 2226, favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce. The corresponding House bill, H. R. 6399, proposes to abolish all allotments except to dependent relatives and, in effect, is a return to section 10 of the act of June 26, 1884. The evils in the allotment system are recognized by all whose attention has been turned to the welfare of our merchant seamen, and if the statutory abolition of allotments would emancipate seamen from debt and put an end to extortion there could be no objection to the allotment features of H. R. 6399. Such legislation, however, is both radical and experimental, and the present does not seem an opportune time for trying it. It is to be regretted that the abolition of allotments, attempted in 1884, did not have a fair trial, and that Congress within two years retraced the step it had taken, but these facts form one reason why there should be hesitation in taking the step now. Even the abolition of allotments in the coasting trade by the act of February, 1895, does not appear to have been wholly successful, as the shipping commissioners at New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and New Orleans believe that such allotments are still exacted, though proof can not be obtained, and if obtained a penalty is lacking through a defect in that law. In view of our experience with the act of 1884, and of the further fact that allotments are permitted in the case of foreign vessels with which our own must compete in foreign trade, it appears to be a more prudent course at present to undertake the system of regulation of allotments provided in section 24 of S. 2226 rather than to take the radical step proposed in the House bill.

TONNAGE TAXES.

BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, December 5, 1896.

After this report was sent to the printer, the President issued his proclamation dated December 3, 1896, which resumes after January 2, 1897, the imposition of tonnage taxes on vessels entering the United States from German ports. The suspension of these taxes was authorized by the President in a proclamation issued January 26, 1888, pursuant to section 11 of the act of June 19, 1886. During the current calendar year the State Department, at the request of this Bureau, transmitted through the Honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, has made an investigation into the charges imposed on American vessels in German ports. This investigation has developed the fact that while the German Imperial Government imposes no taxes on American shipping, it nevertheless allows the German maritime states to tax American ships for the general purposes of river and harbor improvements and maintenance of the lighthouse service. In brief, it has been shown that the German Government has availed itself of a difference between the Constitution of the United States and the German imperial constitution to obtain an advantage over the United States in the matter of reciprocal exemptions from tonnage and light-house dues on shipping. Under the German imperial constitution such charges are relegated to the maritime states. Under the Constitution of the United States the States are forbidden to levy such charges which are relegated to the Federal Government. The German Government for some years has taken advantage of this different distribution of power to tax shipping and held that so long as its imperial authority, deprived constitutionally of the right to levy taxes on shipping-except discriminating taxes--has not exercised a forbidden power, that, therefore, the Federal Government of the United States, alone empowered by the Constitution to impose tonnage dues, can not exercise that power under the act of 1886, in the case of vessels entering from Germany. The Government of the United States has declined to accept this strained construction of the act of 1886, and holds that tonnage taxes and light-house dues levied for the benefit of the harbor of Hamburg and to light the entrance to the harbor of Bremen are equivalent taxes to our tonnage taxes. While not directly involved, the fact may be mentioned, that the President's proclamation will remove a discrimination against our only transatlantic steamship line and will add about $65,000 annually to the income of the Marine Hospital, as estimated by this Bureau, or $80,000 as estimated by agents of the steamship lines concerned.

In Appendix B will be found statements of shipping commissioners at several of the principal seaports concerning the allotments of wages. The total number of allotments to creditors reported by the commissioners was 5,050, compared with 15,503 for the previous fiscal year. This great decrease is due to the passage of the act of February 18, 1895, prohibiting allotments in the coastwise trade. This showing would be most satisfactory were it not for the fact that the shipping commissioners at New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and New Orleans concur in the belief that the practice of issuing allotments still continues in this trade where seamen are shipped outside the offices of the commissioners.

TONNAGE TAX.

The tonnage tax reported for the year amounted to $544,254.97, compared with $523,344.61 for the previous fiscal year. Of this amount $359,394.11 were paid by British vessels, $66,868.61 by American vessels, and $29,597.11 by Norwegian vessels. Steam vessels paid $378,925.22 and sailing vessels $163,194.34. The penal tonnage taxes amounted to $2,135.41.

I have the honor to renew the recommendation for the early repeal of the law exempting from tonnage taxes vessels from foreign countries, islands, and ports which extend to vessels of the United States a like exemption in their ports. A bill (H. R. 2672) for the repeal of the law in question passed the House of Representatives at the last session and was favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, but was subsequently recommitted for a hearing and now awaits action. The bill also proposes to reduce from 3 to 2 cents per ton the tonnage tax now imposed on vessels from foreign ports in North American, the Gulf, and Caribbean ports of Central and South America, the West Indies, and Hawaii. The reasons in support of this measure were set forth fully in the report of the Bureau for last year, pages 49 to 57, to which reference is here made. It was shown in that report that the United States derive no return from Germany and the Netherlands, the principal nations with which this arrangement has been made, at all commensurate with the exemptions which the vessels of those two nations receive in American ports. There is no question of treaty obligations involved in the bill proposed, and the freight rates from New York to Hamburg, Bremen, and Rotterdam, as compared with rates to Southampton, London, Antwerp, and Havre, show that this exemption from tonnage tax results in no reduction of rates to American exporters and importers. It has done nothing to promote American shipping, as the entries of American vessels into Germany and the Netherlands are insignificant even when compared with our meager entries into Great Britain. The merits of this measure were set forth so fully in last year's report that it is not deemed necessary to restate them.

REPORTS OF SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS.

The reports of United States shipping commissioners show that during the year there were 56,881 shipments of seamen, 27,280 reshipments, and 46,167 discharges, making a total of 130,328 times when services were rendered to masters and seamen by commissioners. For the previous year there were 57,501 shipments, 25,234 reshipments, and 35,758 discharges, making a total of 118,493 services. The business of the offices shows, thus, an apparent increase of about 12,000