The need for those special controls and special powers is diminishing. Business wants to be turned loose. It wants to have an opportunity to go ahead. It wants to get out from under regulation.

I feel that these men are right in coming here and opposing what looks like a division of power and imposition of further controls on business.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the privilege of presenting to this distinguished committee three businessmen from my district.

They are men who operate businesses, who are in position to state frankly and clearly just how they would be affected by this proposed legislation.

At this time I want to introduce Mr. Fred L. Sanford of De Funiak Springs.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you swear that the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mr. SANFORD. I do.

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you state your name for the reporter?

TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK L. SANFORD, DE FUNIAK SPRINGS, FLA.

Mr. SANFORD. I am Frederick L. Sanford.

In coming up here to attend this hearing, I did so because it seemed very important.

We are now regulated under the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard inspect and certify and certificate our vessels.

They have very excellent regulations, which there should be for explosives and dangerous cargoes, and we see no reason why it should be transferred over to the ICČ.

The fact that there have been practically no accidents occasioned by matters that were not covered by regulations is evidence that the Coast Guard is doing a wonderful job.

They are in the boat business. They should be and are more familiar with our problems than the ICC could or would be.

That has been covered so thoroughly by others that I think it is not necessary to say anything else.

Mr. FORISTEL. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present Mr. A. P. Ward, of Pensacolo.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the truth? Mr. WARD. I do.

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you please state your name for the reporter? TESTIMONY OF A. P. WARD, PRESIDENT, A. P. WARD & SON, INC., PENSACOLA, FLA.

Mr. WARD. I am A. P. Ward, president of A. P. Ward & Son, Inc., Pensacola, Fla.

Mr. FORISTEL. You may proceed, sir.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I can add very little to what the other gentlemen have said. In fact, I concur wholeheartedly and would not add more than one or two items.

I started out in the steamboat business as a boy. I got to be a master and then an operator, all under the Coast Guard regulations.

In fact, I have lived under them for 35 years. I don't think that any agency can be formed to do any better job than they have done in regulating our men, or equipment, to date.

The CHAIRMAN. Have your operations been profitable?

Mr. WARD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think they would be profitable if this regulation were changed?

Mr. WARD. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to state your reasons for that statement?

Mr. WARD. Well, I couldn't stand the expense for one thing.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by that?

Mr. WARD. I have had a little experience with regulation, in connection with another company that I was working with.

In fact, I appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission and got contract clause rights as to two companies.

At a recent date, those companies asked to be relieved of those rights. There was just too much work, too much regulation.

I would have to increase my office force at the present time if this regulation went into effect, as it appears they want. I will have to increase my office force, I would say, threefold anyhow.

I just don't think you need any further regulation. It boils down to that simple statement.

We are well regulated, and we are getting along well.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it cause any increase in your rates?

Mr. WARD. Certainly, if there were to come an overlapping of authority, changes in equipment, type of barge, or if we would have to tow in certain ways, or according to certain conditions. And there, I don't believe any agency is capable of telling us what to do except the Coast Guard. There is no doubt but what somebody will come along and change some of it.

I have seen it happen.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present Mr. Pete Hyer, also of Pensacola.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you swear that your testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mr. HYER. I do.

Mr. FORISTEL. Go right ahead.

TESTIMONY OF PETE HYER, HYER TOWING CO., PENSACOLA, FLA.

Mr. HYER. My name is A. M. Hyer; I am generally known as Pete. I have been in this business of transporting petroleum for a good many years. In fact, I was in it before we had the Coast Guard regulating us.

We used to haul oil in bulk in old wooden barges.

Along about 1938 or 1937, somewhere along in there, they promulgated these new rules and regulations governing the handling of petroleum.

At the time, I didn't know whether they were good or bad, but we found out since that they were very good.

We have lived under the Coast Guard ever since. We have found that their rules and regulations are very strict. tA times, I don't agree with them, but I know they are made in the interest of safety.

68751-48-6

The record of the transportation of petroleum during peacetime and during wartime has pretty well proved that the Coast Guard has done a swell job.

As I say, I don't always agree with their regulations, but they are good. They are all right. We are happy to live under them. But we don't want any more.

So if we get another agency in there to stick their regulations down our throats, our costs are going up, and lots of the little fellows will be forced out. And they shouldn't be.

Because all of you, I think, can remember that during the war, our industry did one hell of a good job. And I don't think any of you want to see it fall by the wayside.

I do think this bill, which has been elaborated on by different ones, has been pretty well explained by this group.

I don't think there is anything further I could say as to it or as to that, except that it would certainly work a hardship on our industry. I hope it will never be passed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Mr. SIKES. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

And let me say to these gentlemen who are assembled here that the interests of small business are in very capable hands when they are in the hands of this committee, and when this committee has the chairmanship that it has.

Mr. FORISTEL. I would like to ask if anyone here would like to testify further?

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you state your name to the reporter?

Mr. CREDITOR. My name is Morris Creditor.

I am vice president of the Ohio River Co.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you swear that you testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. CREDITOR. I do.

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you proceed, Mr. Creditor.

TESTIMONY OF MORRIS CREDITOR, VICE PRESIDENT, THE OHIO RIVER CO.

Mr. CREDITOR. First of all, I want to say that I concur wholeheartedly in the statements made by those who are opposing S. 1141.

What I have to say may not add anything to it, but I do want to make some comments.

In my opinion, S. 1141 is contrary to the commendable efforts of Congress to simplify regulations and the functioning of Government, insofar as it results in duplication of effort.

No one in this room is opposed to the regulation of dangerous cargo, and this subject is not even involved in S. 1141, because we already have and have had such regulation for many, many years.

This bill simply proposes to transfer the jurisdiction from one governmental agency to another. How and where is the public interest enhanced and promoted by such a transfer?

The last Congress passed a law known as the Taft-Hartley law, which, in one of its provisions, we hope, will eliminate the jurisdic

tional disputes among labor groups which have tended to tie up an industry.

It would seem to me that S. 1141 is an instrument which would create jurisdictional disputes between Government agencies, and I urge that Congress not permit this to happen, and that they throw S. 1141 in the wastebasket.

Mr. Perrin, in his remarks, said that in periods of emergency the Government could then act quickly in these emergencies if it had control.

Well, I think if we would go back to the experiences of the past war, we would find that the usual occurrence was to relax restrictions rather than to tighten them.

This was done by the War Production Board and the Department of Justice.

In other words, things had to move; and if regulation hampered those movements, we just threw them aside.

I don't see how it is going to be any different whether that regulation comes under the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Coast Guard, which has the jurisdiction now.

Mr. Perrin in his statement also said that it is the claim of the Interstate Commerce Commission that perhaps there will be economies in administration by consolidation under one agency.

My question is: If liquid cargo is exempt, would not the remaining volume of dangerous cargo, which would represent only 20 percent of what they are going to have jurisdiction over, be so small that there could be no reduction of Coast Guard personnel, and so forth, while, nevertheless, it would require an increase in the ICC personnel and staff.

Where is economy possible in such circumstances?

I want to say again: How could there be unification of service and effort if the Coast Guard would still be required to administer the liquid cargo, which would come under their jurisdiction?

There is no economy in that. It is simply a duplication of effort. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. CREDITOR. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses?

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you step forward, please, and give the reporter your name?

Mr. BATSELL. My name is Elmer Batsell.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you swear that your testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. BATSELL. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you identify yourself, please, Mr. Batsell? TESTIMONY OF ELMER BATSELL, REPRESENTING J. H. GISSELL & CO., HOUSTON, TEX.

Mr. BATSELL. I am with J. H. Gissell & Co., of Houston, Tex. Mr. Chairman, I am here solely to second what has been stated before. I especially want to make a statement, because Mr. Gissell, who intended to be here himself, was unavoidably detained, and unable to come. Accordingly, he asked me to attend the meeting, and to tell the committee how very firmly he believes the statements which have been made heretofore by the other people who have testified against the pending bill.

My sole purpose is to in his behalf reiterate those statements, anď emphasize his very definite belief that this proposed legislation can only create confusion, without adding one whit to the continuing safety of the products which are transported by these carriers.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Are there any other witnesses?

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you come forward, sir?

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

Mr. FORISTEL. Go ahead, sir.

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY PFLAGER, REPRESENTING BEARDSLEE LAUNCH & BARGE SERVICE, MOBILE, ALA.

Mr. PFLAGER. My name is Sidney Pflager. I represent the Beardslee Launch & Barge Service and also the Owen Simms Bros. in Mobile, also.

I don't have a great deal to add to what has been said, but I also would like to concur, on behalf of Mr. Beardslee and the Simms Bros., who operate in Mobile, Ala.

I would also like to call to your attention the fact that I know, of my own personal knowledge, of the thing that was described by Mr. Ward who testified a few moments ago.

It was to the effect that under ICC regulations, for a small business of the type that many of the men here own and operate, various ports, the increase in costs, which necessitate the charge of a higher rate, have proved so burdensome as to cause these small businesses to either withdraw or, in some instances, practically be forced out of business. The CHAIRMAN. Withdraw from the ICC?

Mr. PFLAGER. Yes, or withdraw their permits.

Mr. CROST. When you are talking about regulation, are you talking of the kind of regulation that is involved in this particular bill, or are you talking about the kind of regulation that has to do with certificates of necessity, and so forth?

Mr. PFLAGER. I was referring to the certificates of necessity, as to getting this and that type of rate. As far as the regulation is concerned, I believe that the entire group here is not opposed to being regulated, but is confident that the regulations imposed at the present time under the United States Coast Guard are ample and fitting to cover the safety and welfare of the public in general.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you have anything further?

Mr. PFLAGER. That is all.

Mr. FORISTEL. Will you state your name to the reporter, and to the committee?

Mr. COLLINS. Harry J. Collins. I am vice president and general manager for Koch-Ellis, of New Orleans.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you swear that your testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. COLLINS. I do.

Mr. FORISTEL. Go right ahead.