a previous witness that any commodity can be classed as dangerous. Mr. FORISTEL. If any one of those commodities that you talk about as being dangerous were tied together with a mixed cargo, 15 barges

Mr. THOMPSON. The entire cargo would be subject to the same regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the Coast Guard like to comment on that? Commodore Shepheard?

Commodore SHEPHEARD. I have nothing to add.

Mr. FORISTEL. Is that true-that if it were mixed it would be inflammable?

Commodore SHEPHEARD. Of course, there are cargoes which by themselves are quite innocuous, but when they are in combination with others become dangerous.

Mr. FORISTEL. The complainants here are small barge operators who have four or five barges, and a tug, or a sizable boat, to push them up and down the rivers, and many times they mix their cargoes, do they not?

Mr. THOMPSON. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hill?

Mr. HILL. I noticed you referred to S. 1141. Is there a similar House bill?

Mr. THOMPSON. To my knowledge, no.

Mr. HILL. I noticed another thing about this bill. It said it was introduced by request. Can you tell us who made the request to the Senate?

Mr. THOMPSON. According to the testimony of the witness for the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission requested the enactment of this legislation. Witness Perrin so stated in his statement.

Mr. PERRIN. It has been recommended from year to year, since 1943. Mr. HILL. By whom?

Mr. PERRIN. The Commission; Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. HILL. So it is the Interstate Commerce Commission that is pushing the bill. Is that right?

Mr. PERRIN. I would not say necessarily they are pushing it. They recommended it.

Mr. HILL. Supporting it?

Mr. PERRIN. Supporting.

Mr. THOMPSON. Similar legislation has been pending, as the gentleman stated, in previous conferences.

Mr. CROST. Are there any private groups that are interested in seeing the bill passed?

Mr. PERRIN. I could not answer that.

Mr. CROST. Do you know, Mr. Thompson?

Mr. THOMPSON. Among the water carrier groups, no.

Mr. CROST. Any other types?

Mr. THOMPSON. To my knowledge, I have no knowledge of it. I do not know a single person identified with the water transportation industry of the United States who is not opposed to the provisions of S. 1141.

Mr. CROST. Do you know of anybody in the transportation industry who is in favor of it?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do not know of any.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thompson, would you care to comment on the economic effect of the small barge operators?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the economic effect of the enactment of legislation of this nature upon the small barge operators would be most adverse. It might possibly go to the extent of requiring a remodeling or rehabilitation of certain equipment that would undoubtedly result in compelling them to increase their rates in a highly competitive field, that might be most damaging to a substantial number of the operators represented here.

And that would have a similar effect upon the general distribution of the economy of the country. After all, transportation is distribution.

The effect would be adverse all along the line, as I view it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. FORISTEL. I would like now to call Mr. Ball, who is a typical small water carrier.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ball?

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, Mr. Ball?

The CHAIRMAN. First, would you identify yourself?

Mr. BALL. President and general manager of the Sabine Transportation Co., Port Arthur, Tex.

Mr. FORISTEL. Your full name?

Mr. BALL. Munger T. Ball.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BALL. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MUNGER T. BALL, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, SABINE TRANSPORTATION CO., PORT ARTHUR, TEX.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. BALL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have no prepared statement.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed as you wish.

Mr. BALL. I did not expect to be in attendance. I would like to refer to a few notes that I have made since I arrived in Washington.

The proposed bill, Senate 1141, has no preamble which would indicate what is to be accomplished in the passage of this bill. It is assumed that the proposed amendment to the bill would have for its purpose that the public interest is entitled to protection from the carriers, and operators, whether they be public or private.

In reviewing the bill and the various references and definitions it is my opinion that S. 1141 is to replace expressedly R. S. 4272, as amended (46 U. S. 170), and vest the regulation of the transportation of explosives and dangerous articles on board vessels in the Interstate Commerce Commission.

I think probably it might be well to maybe go back a little bit into the history of 4272, and probably that may reveal the real purposes of

this bill.

To bring us a little up to date on it, I find this: In 1871 the supervising inspectors of the Steamboat Inspection Service were charged

with the duty of enforcing certain safety provisions on board vessels. This authority was conferred by the act of February 1871 and codified in the Revised Statutes as section 4472.

The act of March 1921, 172, however, amended section 273 of the Criminal Code to authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission to formulate regulations governing the transportation of explosives or other dangerous articles on vessels which were common carriers and regulated and engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.

In the years following 1921 the Interstate Commerce Commission made several attempts to promulgate regulations under that new authority granted them by that act.

The conflicts between the regulation of Interstate Commerce Commission and the regulation of the statutes administered by the Steambot Inspection Service caused such confusion that in 1937 the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, which was the successor to the Steamboat Inspection Service, undertook the task of drafting new regulations to clarify the situation, with the result that the act of October 1940 (46 U. S. Č. 170) amended R. S. 4472 by making it a complete modern new law for the governing of the carriage of dangerous articles on board vessels.

This act took away from the Interstate Commerce Commission all authority over transportation of explosives or dangerous articles on board vessels, with the exception of a provision making the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations binding upon shippers making shipments of explosives and dangerous articles by a common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. This control was agreed upon for the sake of uniformity, labeling, and packaging of these articles.

Now, as a result of that new legislation that was enacted in 1940 the Department of Commerce issued this very extensive set of rules and regulations under date of April 9, 1941, on explosives or other dangerous articles on board vessels; and in reading this over, if they missed anything I do not know what it is, because it has every type and description of articles that could be classed dangerous, and in any manner in which it might be carried or handled aboard vessels. This act, S. 1141, is so broad that anyone carrying any person or anything by water, land, or air, any place, would come under this bill. And that is just pretty broad.

Under the definition of "carriers" and "persons"-under "carriers" you find described water carriers, railroads, truck lines, air lines, and, while it is not mentioned, it will be pipe lines, and would give the Interstate Commerce Commission permission, so far as safety is concerned, as to the regulation of oil from the time it is produced in the well until it reached its ultimate consumer.

I am holding no brief for the railroads, for the truck lines or the pipe lines, nor for the air lines; I am solely concerned with the effect that this bill will have on water carriers and particularly those types of water carriers the majority of whom here today are exempt carriers and carrying exempt products.

While this bill may have therein contained regulation to some types of carriers that well come under, that is for those carriers that may be affected who can speak for themselves, and I think that any reference to vessels or water carriers or legislation pertaining to them, or

amendments to legislate on water carriers, should be stricken out of this bill in its entirety.

For the rest of the bill I will let the people affected by it speak for themselves. I am solely concerned with the effect it might have on water carriers, of which my company is one of the exempt types of carriers.

I feel that this bill is so broad in its coverage and so far-reaching, and its industries and people that it will affect, that it is discriminatory, inconsistent, overlapping, and is grasping in its authority. Those are pretty broad statements to make. But I think by example I can show you what I want to say.

We water carriers, especially the small-vessel operators, feel that there is ample legislation and ample rules and regulations to cover the performance that this bill intends to cover. We feel that these regulations are in the hands of a competent Government agency, the United States Coast Guard, a part of the United States Treasury Department, and acting under United States authority.

As I previously stated the Marine Steamboat Inspection Service since 1871 has been charged with the duty of safety regulations aboard vessels. Under the definition "dangerous articles" contained in the bill here, it means "any substance having explosive, combustible, inflammable, oxidizing, corrosive, or poisonous characteristics." Take the two words "combustible" and "inflammable." It could cover hay, straw, hemp, bagasse; it will affect rice farmers, ordinary farmers, cane planters. The farmer under this bill could not even take a load of hay and deliver it to town to a warehouse, under the heading of an inflammable article, without complying with the regulations that may be imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and properly marking and identifying, or at least having an exempt certificate issued to him.

The truck line, whether he be an individual, private, common, or contract carrier, could not lift that load of hay without first seeing that the shipper had a proper permit, and he himself had one, and neither could the warehouseman receive it.

The cane planter from the sugar mill could not transport the bagasse that he has taken from the sugar grinder and ship it to the Celotex people for the manufacture of wallboard. That is how broad this thing is.

It has been stated by the gentleman representing the Interstate Commerce Commission here that the Interstate Commerce Commission probably would not invoke such regulations. I say if they do not intend to invoke them they should delete it out of the bill. is broad enough that they could invoke it if they wanted to, if the bill is accepted as it is.

It

I also note that under the heading of "dangerous articles" that nothing has been said about hazardous articles which are controlled. in part by the Coast Guard regulation that comes under that same category. And certainly if there is a need for the regulation of one there should be a need for the regulations of the other.

I have said that this bill was rather inconsistent, and I pointed out one of the inconsistencies that I see in this bill. The definition of "vessel" means—

any watercraft used or usable for the transportation of property or passengers by water, exclusive of (1), any public vessel which is not engaged in commercial service * *

A Government vessel engaged in commercial service, such as the vessels now owned by the United States Maritime Commission operated by them under either bare-boat time charter or Government agency agreement, in carrying these articles would come under the provisions of this bill. However, that same vessel, doing identically the same service for the Government, would be exempt. I think that that is rather inconsistent with the statement made by Mr. Perrin a few moments ago, where he said that transportation of dangerous articles by a private carrier is no less dangerous and detrimental to the public interest and safety than if it is carried by a common carrier.

By that same statement I say that if a Government-owned vessel engaged in the transportation of these same dangerous articles it is no less dangerous for a Government vessel to handle them than it is a private, a contract, or a common carrier. I think there is an inconsistency in the position taken here in the statement, and the way this bill is written.

The second exemption under vessels says "Any vessel constructed or converted for the principal purposes of carrying inflammable or combustible liquid cargo in bulk in its own tanks which vessel is subject to the provisions of section 4417-a of the revised statutes, United States Code, 1940 edition, title 46, section 391-a.

That is the act under which the tanker movement regulations became law. That was in 1938.

If you will go back to that act you will find under tank vessels the same reference, it says:

All vessels regardless of tonnage, size or manner of propulsion, whether self-propelled or not, whether carrying freight or passengers for hire or not, that shall have on board any inflammable or combustible liquid cargo in bulk, except public vessels owned by the United States, other than those engaged in commercial service, shall be considered steam vessels for the purpose of this title and shall be subject to the provisions thereof: Provided, That this section shall not apply to vessels having on board only inflammable or combustible liquids for use as fuel or stores, or to vessels carrying liquid cargo only in drums, barrels, or other packages.

Under the tanker rules and regulations it does not provide, by law, that the carrying of drums and drum barrels or other packages of liquid petroleum would come under the tanker rules and regulations.

What S. 1141 appears to me to be doing is that they are asking, by legislation, to have control over those articles on tank vessels which, by regulation, is now being handled by the Coast Guard. And it would take away from the provisions of that particular act that one small feature out of it and throw it under these regulations, whereas the remaining portion of 4417-a would come clearly under the hands of the Coast Guard.

There we have a situation of two governmental agencies invoking certain rules and regulations aboard the same vessel. And it could well be, as Commodore Shepheard has pointed out, that the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the carriage of this type of package freight, combustible and inflammable liquid in drums or barrels, might be that they will say: "We will tell you how that portion of the vessel will be constructed."

From the beginning of the construction of the vessel you would have two agencies that would tell you how to build your ship. It could well be under this act. It is broad enough.