It appears to us that a safer plan would be to continue the existing organization "as is" and to concentrate on improvements in administration and regu lation. We believe the problem of reorganization might well be studed at a future time and in detail. At such time the proposed changes contained in S. 1916 may be of great value, provided a reorganization is then found desirable.

The Bureau is nearly a century old and it has been gradually molded into its present form of organization by specific needs. We wish to select just one item in the plan to reorganize the Bureau to illustrate this point. S. 1916 abolishes the function of "rule maker" of the supervising inspector and apparently gives it to a central-planning board in the Bureau in Washington. The merchant marine is a composite of many kinds of vessels operating under a multitude of conditions and its problems reflect this very complex situation. Conditions as to shipping vary in different parts of the country. The problems on the Great Lakes differ from those on the Chesapeake and the Mississippi. Even the west coast ocean shipping differs in many respects from shipping on the east coast.

The position of supervising inspector was not born with the Bureau, it was created fater. When the board of supervising inspectors meet in Washington, each one represents a definite shipping locality and each is familiar with the local conditions in his district. This representation has always provided a very practical and workable means of assuring that regulations adopted by the Bureau would fit all of the varied conditions existing throughout the country. Unless this familiarity with local conditions exists and is used as a measure of the practicability of new regulations, it is quite likely that local interests may be injured unknowingly by the Bureau. This is particularly true in the case of small owners, fishermen, oystermen, small towing vessels engaged in towing lumber, rafts, etc.

An example of this local importance of the supervising inspector is to be found in the amendment to section 4427 of the Revised Statutes approved February 23, 1901, which provides that the supervising inspectors may authorize and license certain vessels engaged in food fishing, oyster dredging, and planting, towing, etc., on the Great Lakes and all other inland waters to carry persons in addition to the regular crew to perform the above work without having such persons considered as passengers.

7. Conclusion.-Just before the turn of the last century two new American shipping enterprises were born. Neither of these new enterprises was destined to trespass to any extent on the business of existing shipping for the new enterprises were of a different and noncompetitive kind. They were the oil and the ore carriers. If we subtract the tonnage of the oil and ore carriers year by year, starting just before the World War, from the total American merchant marine, we are confronted with the astounding fact that the tonnage of the remainder of the merchant marine is practically the same today as it was in 1916.

This statement is true notwithstanding the fact that under the Shipping Act of 1916 the Government acquired some 3,000 vessels at the cost of many millions; that under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 it attempted to encourage the upbuilding of a privately owned American merchant marine; that under the Merchant Marine Act of 1928 it fostered a program of building and operating American ships under private ownership; and under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 it created the United States Maritime Commission and made many other provisions for the upbuilding of shipping.

The Seventy-fourth Congress enacted laws relating to the merchant marine as follows: Amendment to the Seamen's Act; changes in the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation; Carriage of Goods by Sea Act; Coastwise Load Line Act; Limitation of Shipowners Liability Act; inspection of vessels propelled by internal-combustion engines; two Dangerous Cargo Acts; Licensing of Coasting and Fishing Vessels Act; Steering Orders Act; and the Automatic Sprinkler System Act. Possibly this Congress will also produce much legislation relating to the merchant marine.

A review of legislation relating to shipping passed during this century clearly indicates the sustained interest of Congress in its problems and a very definite increase in legislation with the growth of the problem. The problems affecting shipping have never been greater than they are today nor has new legislation affecting it ever been more voluminous.

The American merchant marine is at present in a most critical position-it is manned with labor trouble, loaded with rules and regulations, and bound for a destination unknown.

IF SHIPPING IS TO PROGRESS THERE MUST BE A STOCK TAKING, WE MUST STOP, STUDY, AND PLAN

What is needed more than anything else is a survey and understanding of shipping problems by all concerned. This is the single patch of blue sky in. the fog of present shipping troubles. A joint survey of shipping problems honestly and deliberately made by representatives of the Government and the owners is the only kind of diagnosis to which shipping ills have never been submitted.

Fortunately complete provision is made for such a study in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. This act starts with a broad declaration of policy to which all will subscribe. Under section 212 of this act the Maritime Commission is authorized and directed: "To study and to cooperate with vessel owners—” to devise means by which several things may be accomplished, one of which is: "To make recommendations to Congress, from time to time, for such further legislation as it deems necessary better to effectuate the purpose and policy of this act."

Here we have the foundation provided by Congress for what may well be the answer to the shipping problem. It is in our opinion:

COOPERATION

Cooperation made possible the establishment of the Bureau's new rules for tank vessels. The Bureau solicited the cooperation of tanker owners. These owners accepted the invitation and assigned their technical men to the work which, after criticism by the Bureau's technical staff, followed by a public hearing, and review and adoption by the Board of Supervising Inspectors, was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and issued in August 1936.

Today, on behalf of tanker owners, we solicit the cooperation of the Senate Committee on Commerce to the end that the Bureau's Rules for Tank Vessels shall not be interfered with by the provisions of the bill now under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Captain Glatzmayer here?

Mr. CONWAY. Senator, Mr. Glatzmayer was called away on account of a death in his family, and he has asked me to represent him, to some extent.

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. CONWAY, PRESIDENT, ATLANTIC COAST AND GULF OF MEXICO TOWBOAT ASSOCIATION

Mr. CONWAY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is James G. Conway. I am president of the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico Towboat Association.

Our interest in S. 1916 (committee print) lies in the fact that many of our vessels are included in all groups. Group no. 1, oceangoing vessels navigating more than 20 miles offshore, will take in some of our ocean towboats. Ocean-going vessels in group 2, navigating less than 20 miles offshore, will take in some of our towboats. Of course, our other vessels are in all the other groups.

Inasamuch as the bill requires that the requirements of the bill shall apply to all the vessels in groups 1, 2, and 3, of more than 100 gross tons, and to any vessel falling in group 4 or 5, which is 50 gross tons or over, we feel that we have some interest in this

matter.

Our objection, to a great extent, lies in the fact that the mandatory features of many provisions of the act apply to tugboats, and we do not think it was ever intended by the technical committee to place the same restrictions on tugboats as on passenger vessels and other seagoing vessels.

The CHAIRMAN. For our benefit, let me ask Captain Joyce how much attention was given to the tugboat problem by the technical committee.

Captain JOYCE. They were considered in the same category as cargo vessels, and there are no particular hardships placed on them, so far as we can see.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps the witness will point out some.

Mr. CONWAY. Certainly if I went through that committee report, Senator, I could point out many hardships. I will not attempt to do that, however. I shall point out one or two:

One of the provisions is that vessels in group 1 shall be inspected before they leave port, as to whether or not they are in shape to proceed because of trim. That is the intent of the provision.

The language on page 10, line 12, is:

to insure that vessels do not leave port with a dangerous list or so down by the head or stern as to make them unmanageable in a heavy sea or in narrow waters.

What I am wondering is just what that means. Is that when they leave their original port, or when they leave some port at which they have arrived, and proceeded immediately from, or what? It is a mandatory feature on all those vessels.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the answer to that, Captain?

Captain JOYCE. The intent is that they shall not leave port, as it says, with a dangerous list, to go to sea. It might be amplified by some further words if it is ambiguous.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean "as to make them unmanageable"? Is that what you mean?

Captain JOYCE. Yes, sir; we can apply that, if you wish, to passenger ships only.

The CHAIRMAN. How is that?

Captain JOYCE. It could be applied to passenger ships only, if the committee so decides.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you want, I suppose, that it should not apply to tugboats, but to passenger boats exclusively.

Mr. CONWAY. If it accomplishes any purpose, Senator, there is nothing objectionable in an inspection. However, I do not think an inspection is necessary for a vessel that arrives with a tow in a port, and immediately proceeds again. She might arrive at two or three o'clock in the morning, and be ready to go out right away. You cannot expect inspectors to come aboard the vessel and inspect it at that hour of the morning.

In the application of the bill or the rules to cargo vessels, it is provided that they shall apply to all cargo vessels; that every vessel shall be a cargo vessel unless she is a passenger vessel, when she is over 50 tons. That will apply to some 3,500 vessels in New York Harbor, some of which are manned and some of which are not manned. The arbitrary application of that rule to those vessels we believe to be entirely unnecessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Point out the exact place, so that I can make a note here.

Mr. CONWAY (reading):

The requirements of this act shall apply unless otherwise specified

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that?

Mr. CONWAY. On page 4, section 501, title V:

The requirements of this act shall apply, unless otherwise specified, to any new vessel of the United States falling in groups 1, 2, or 3, which is of 100 gross tons or over, and to any vessel of the United States falling in groups 4 or 5, which is of 50 gross tons or over.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your suggestion there? Do you want to except tugboats?

Mr. CONWAY. The exclusion of tugboats will not cover it, because you have many unmanned dumb barges, railroad equipment, car floats, lighters, and other types of vessels to which the application of this act would work a hardship.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean in section 402?

Mr. CONWAY. Section 501, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your suggestion about the language in lines 20 and 21?

Mr. CONWAY. Really, Senator, I have no suggestion on that, because I consider that this committee has given a lot of attention and time to the consideration of rules and regulations, and there may be merit to it. However, I feel that some consideration should be given to the industry in the promulgation of any rules affecting those vessels, and I would suggest that the rules and regulations, before promulgation, as applied to these vessels, should be subject to public hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, there is saving language here. It says: The requirements of this act shall be applied to all vessels in all groups to as great an extent as is practicable.

You suggest a public hearing to determine what is practicable, is that it?

Mr. CONWAY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. CONWAY. That is all I have to say, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you. We will give

due consideration to what you have said.

Is Mr. Moran here? I have not seen him.

[No response.]

Mr. Bayless.

STATEMENT OF HERMAN A. BAYLESS, COUNSEL FOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. BAYLESS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want to make very brief comment on the bill without discussing the technical features, because I am not equipped to do so, but I should like to be followed by_Captain Barrett, who is equipped to do so, if that is agreeable.

I am counsel for the Mississippi River System Carriers' Association. That association consists of the private or industrial carriers, the contract carriers, and the common carriers on the Mississippi River system, including the Ohio River and the other tributaries.

First, I want to say, without repeating what Mr. Johnson said on behalf of the Great Lakes carriers this morning, that to a great extent, and perhaps to an even greater extent than the Great Lakes carriers, our equipment and our operations on the rivers are contrasted with deep-sea operations. Obviously they are different.

I am quite sure that the committee is composed of distinguished and able men who have labored earnestly and intelligently to formulate these regulations governing deep-sea operations. There were no rivermen, as far as I can gather, on the committee; and also, as far as I can gather-and Captain Barrett will, I think, in his specific comments on the regulations, bear out my statement-only casual attention was given to our river operations.

The latest draft of this bill, adopting the regulations of the Technical Committee on Safety at Sea, Senate Document No. 184, clearly indicates that the committee investigation and report involved consideration of safety at sea in ocean vessels primarily. Because of the vast difference in construction and operation of river vessels of the type employed on the Mississippi River system from ocean vessels, most of the regulations are not applicable to them, especially since they are drafted with special reference to passenger vessels, while we have almost no passenger vessels on the Mississippi system. The CHAIRMAN. Not since the time of Mark Twain.

Mr. BAYLESS. That is right. The slow-moving river vessels have been supplanted by railroads and other fast passenger services until there are but two little 400-ton river-packet boats, known as the Tom Green and the Bald Eagle, operating on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, carrying passengers regularly.

Our river operations, while extensive, are largely confined to cargo carriers transporting more than 50,000,000 tons a year. I think the exact figure last year was approximately 57,000,000 tons, which is an enormous tonnage.

These consist of small towboats which carry no passengers, and which average about 400 tons in size, and barges, which are not manned and which have no living quarters upon them. These towboats carry no freight, but tow it in barges. They carry no passengers, which again differentiates them from the equipment that is intended to be covered by this bill.

Section 1 of this bill provides that it shall cover "documented” vessels. The purpose of this act is to insure that all merchant vessels documented under the laws of the United States are so designed, constructed, equipped, and so forth, as to insure the maximum of safety of life and property. No river barges are documented. The CHAIRMAN. Then what are you worried about?

Mr. BAYLESS. They are included in the act, sir. There is a contradiction in terms in the act. The act says, section 402:

Each of the groups set forth in section 401 of this act may be divided by the bureau into sub groups—

And so forth.

Down below it says:

Towing vessel, cargo barge, tank barge, sailing vessel, and such others as may be required.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose what ought to be done there

Mr. BAYLESS. I shall offer an amendment, Senator, if you will just wait a moment.

The existing laws and regulations governing our inland river boats and operations are adequate and extensive. They are administered by the Bureau of Steamboat Inspection. We are quite content to have them administered by your reorganized bureau, although Mr. Barrett, I think, will point out some changes along the lines of the