Edward Nash Hurley to Woodrow Wilson

I agree heartily with your suggestion that it will be well for us on the other side to listen a great deal, to say little, and to promise nothing.

When the war ends there is bound to be considerable confusion if the governments relax their present shipping regulations. If the shippers are given free sway they will ship their goods not to the points where they are most needed, but where they will get the best prices. Such a condition would result in chaos.

I am well aware that you understand this problem better than any of us, but there is one thought, which is subject to such wide application, that I would like to submit it to you for immediate consideration. For a long time there have been suggestions, made here and in England, that we will not be able to operate our new merchant fleet because of the higher and costlier standards imposed by the La Follette Seaman's Act.

From Chambers of Commerce, Trade Boards and Maritime Exchanges I am constantly receiving the suggestion that we should either repeal that law or amend. I need hardly tell you that I am strongly opposed to either course.

The La Follette law does impose higher standards. The wage scale paid under it is higher than the wage scale of England, France, Norway and all other nations. The requirements with respect to living conditions are higher. The operating costs naturally are higher.

The law, however, is humane. Living conditions on merchant ships throughout the world always have been poor. A seaman's life closely approximates the proverbial "dog's life."If the right sort of arguments are presented, I believe it will be possible to induce foreign governments to accept the standards of the La Follette law.

The position you have taken with respect to the freedom of the seas can be given concrete vindication by an agreement among the leading maritime nations to adopt the standards of the Seaman's law which you advocated and signed.

We can and should go further. We should advocate international uniformity of freight rates. The lines of international communication thus would be freed from any nation's domination. With uniform freight rates and uniform wages to seamen, the trade would go to the efficient manufacturer, and not to the favored manufacturer. It would be similar to an application of the American Interstate Commerce law to the world's free seas.

If this program were adopted, it would be applauded by America unanimously, and, while it might be opposed by shipping interests abroad, it would certainly have the grateful approval of the seamen in all foreign countries. It would, I believe, solve the problem of trade wars. It would give reality and force to the "freedom of the seas".

I have been making a personal study of the question, from the angle indicated, and have been collecting data in support of the agreement. I have reached the point where I am convinced that if we take such a position, it will be regarded as sound, the whole effect of it being in the direction of bringing foreign shipping standards up to ours. As I view it, the European nations naturally may be reluctant to give up what they regard as an advantage, even though it may be an unfair advantage. However, this country is now a factor of such importance in the realm of shipping that our efforts to raise the common level for the benefit of the seamen of all countries will, I am confident, be accorded proper weight.

It seems to me that we have a great opportunity for service to the world in this matter. You have probably given some thought to it yourself. If you think it advisable, I can put Colonel House in touch with the situation when I go to the other side, but I will feel more assured if I can have your frank expression of opinion. My own thought is that the time is ripe to lay the ground-work for such a move.

Faithfully yours,