Therefore, I feel that this Senate bill 1141 which favors the common carrier on our inland waterways should not and must not be passed. Thanking you for your every consideration in our behalf, I am, Yours very truly, CANULETTE TOWING CO., Owner. Mr. M. W. ROWELL, AIKEN TOWING CORP., Pensacola, Fla., October 31, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ROWELL: We are a comparatively small bulk carrier tow boat and barge concern and are sincerely convinced passage of Senate bill 1141, extension of jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over waterway transportation of all dangerous cargo, would legislate us out of business. We can see no argument in favor of this bill. Conditions of bulk transportation have not changed since passage of the Transportation Act of 1940 specifically exempted carriers engaged in transportation of bulk commodities from regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. We and the other bulk carriers of petroleum have a wonderful record of safety operating under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. We can see no reason for change. This company is now engaged in hauling for several refiners and we are afraid that if ICC certificates were required to operate between the points we are now operating and pipe lines or tankers took this business from us we might be unable to secure certificates to operate between points where our specially designed equipment would be suitable. We, as other small concerns, are already overburdened with the clerical work necessary to handle social security, withholding tax, unemployment insurance, etc., etc., etc., and certainly do not want to take on the additional red tape we know would come with Interstate Commerce regulations. Yours very truly, AIKEN TOWING CORP., WARNER & TAMBLE, Mr. M. W. ROWELL, Memphis, Tenn., November 4, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, I am opposed to proposed Senate bill 1141 because, first, it will be unfair to the small operator, it will require the small operator to spend thousands of dollars trying to establish their rights because the large companies will have highpriced lawyers to deprive the small man of his just rights. I know this from experience, as I have been trying to get "grandfather" towing rights since the act of 1940 was passed to regulate water carriers. No success yet. I started on the river in 1908 as a deckhand, worked my way up until I started my own business in 1928. I have traveled all the waters of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The large boat operators claim I have limited rights only. If so-called dangerous cargo are put under regulation all the small and medium operators can expect the same treatment. Regulation is not good for small business; it leads to monopoly by the large, strong companies. Regulation increases cost of operation and yet it does not help the customer. It will increase the cost to the taxpayers. The Interstate Commerce Commission and the Coast Guard will have overlapping authority, causing confusion. A free river will make a prosperous river; let us take the present regulation off-not add more. Yours very truly, WARNER & TAMBLE, H. CHAMPAGNE, Mr. M. W. ROWELL, New Orleans 15, November 5, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I see where another attempt is being made to extend the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over bulk carriers, or in plain words an attempt is in progress to choke the little fellow to death. Speaking for myself, I just cater to oil fields in embryo stage. When the production of any field gets to be of any consequence, the big operators take over and I step out to new fields or other small producing areas. Under ICC regulations I will soon step out of business, because it is next to impossible for me to establish and keep the same run for the simple reason that my small equipment and smaller capital do not allow me to keep pace with the growth of an oil field and its peculiarity. Second, the only office equipment or force at my command is a pencil and pen and the few hours that I can spare after my field work is done. Under ICC regulations enough reports and records to choke a mule must be made and kept, and the small margin of profit under which I operate will not leave me enough to buy a sandwich, nor enough time to carry on an efficient operation. Third, I left Europe 26 years ago because a little fellow did not have a chance. Too many overlapping laws and regulations make it impossible for the little operator to exist, and for these reasons I will do everything in my power to keep not only the ICC but anyone else from hog-tying the little fellow like myself. Fair competition has been the backbone of America; let's keep that backbone from turning to jelly. Yours truly, HENRY CHAMPAGNE. HIGMAN TOWING CO., Orange, Tex., November 4, 1947. Mr. M. W. ROWELL, Executive Director, Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ROWELL: As I was out of town most of last week, and due to illness in my family, I have not had an opportunity to prepare our objections in time for the meeting in New Orleans on November 5. We are definitely opposed to Senate bill 1141 and will prepare our formal objections within the next few days. We trust your committee will oppose this bill with all means in its power. Very truly yours, S. C. TRIMBLE. COYLE LINES, INC. Mr. M. W. ROWELL, New Orleans 14, La., November 10, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business DEAR SIR: I have before me Senate bill 1141 which, if enacted, will place the supervision and regulation of dangerous cargoes under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. My complaint against this bill has to do with that section which brings the movement of dangerous cargoes by water under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. These commodities are now regulated and have been regulated for quite some time by the United States Coast Guard or its predecessor, the Bureau of Marine Inspection. They have certainly done a good job as the records will indicate and my company sees no reason to change. It is our hope that if this bill is passed, all reference to transportation by water will be removed from it. Yours very truly, BAILEY T. DEBARDELEBEN, To Whom It May Concern: INDUSTRIAL MARINE SERVICE, We are strongly opposed to any legislation placing regulation on bulk carriers. Since 1940 we have been engaged in the transportation by water of bulk petroleum products. Our business has been built up by operating in open free competition, and it is our firm opinion that this is the most desirable plan, both from the standpoint of the shipper and the carrier, under which we should operate. The placing of our operations under further regulations would definitely reduce our efficiency and increase the costs of transporting these products. We feel that we have contributed in some degree, during recent emergencies, to the efficient and successful movement of a vital product, when and where it was most needed, and that our voice in this matter should be heard and be given consideration. Yours very truly, Mr. M. W. ROWELL, Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, DEAR MR. ROWELL: It has come to our attention that a bill, S. 1141, extension of jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over waterway transportation of all dangerous cargo, is now pending before the Congress. For the reasons given below we consider that passage of this bill would not be in the best interests of our company, the petroleum industry or the public. 1. We are opposed to further extension of any governmental control unless such control is absolutely essential to the well-being of the country and the maintenance of our present competitive system. 2. In common with many petroleum refineries, particularly some of small size, we rely largely on water transportation of crude oil and petroleum products. Over 95 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products brought into, and approximately 25 percent of the products leaving our refinery are transported by water in bulk. The contract carriers and ourselves as private carriers performing this water transportation provide efficient, flexible, and economical service. Any further regulation of these carriers would tend to increase their costs and reduce their efficiency, which would in turn adversely affect us as well as other refiners and our customers. 3. The present short supply of petroleum products in certain areas is generally regarded as primarily caused by inadequate transportation facilities. This condition will probably exist for several years. Any regulations tending to discourage the development of bulk carriage of petroleum or reducing the present flexibility or economics of these operations will only aggravate the supply situation. We request that the present exemption of bulk carriers in water transportation be continued and that no changes be made in the regulations or their applications to private and contract hauling of petroleum and its products in bulk. Yours very truly, Mr. M. W. ROWELL, CLIVE M. ALEXANDER, KOSMOS TOWING CO., INC., Wilmington, Del., October 31, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, DEAR SIR: In our estimation it will be a great blow to river traffic if the exemption of liquid cargoes and (under certain conditions) dry bulk cargoes is removed from part III of the Interstate Commerce Act. There is entirely too much regulation, railroad, truck, and water carrier already. There cannot be any discrimination on the rivers since they are open to all and any shipper discriminated against has the remedy in his own hands. This is not true as to rail shippers. The possibility of discrimination is to our mind the only good reason for regulation at all. Very truly yours, KOSMOS TOWING CO., INC. B. & M. ToWING CO., Houston 1, Tex., November 4, 1947. Subject: Senate bill 1141, extension of jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over waterway transportation of all dangerous cargo. Mr. M. W. ROWELL, Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We would like to go on record that we are against the passage of subject legislation for the following reasons: 1. The Coast Guard now has exclusive authority over the transportation by inland waterways of dangerous cargo and since 1942 when the Coast Guard assumed such responsibilities they have done a good job, and the contract bulk carriers under their regulations have transported many tons of petroleum products (which would be the principal dangerous cargo transported) with a minimum of accidents to equipment and personnel. We, therefore, see no reason why the Coast Guard should either be relieved of the duties which they have performed so satisfactorily, or have such duties also supervised by the Interstate Commerce Commission, resulting in confusion in the interpretation and application of the rules and regulations set forth by both parties. 2. In having such transportation regulated by the Coast Guard and the Interstate Commerce Commission, there would be a tremendous amount of duplication of paper work which could not be justified. In addition to the expense caused the operators, there would be a duplication of work performed by two Government agencies, the cost of which in turn is passed on to the taxpayer, and we see no reason why any action should be taken which would unnecessarily increase the tax burden and obtain no additional benefits or results for the public or the operators. 3. Any such regulation would definitely limit the scope of operation of a contract carrier. If a contract carrier, prior to such regulations, was not towing on certain rivers it would be impossible for him to obtain a certificate permitting him to tow on such rivers. Specifically, we have never towed to date on the upper Mississippi River, although our equipment is capable of towing in that location. If this law is passed, we would not be permitted to ever tow on the upper Mississippi River. If for any reason the transportation of petroleum products by barge should be eliminated to the regions to which we have been towing and over the waterways on which we have been operating, we would then find it necessary to seek towing business elsewhere. If the only business available was to the upper Mississippi River, we would then be out of business. Why should any legislation be passed in Washington that would so affect operators such as ourselves? Certainly it should not be the intent of Washington to put us out of business but to keep us in business. 4. Contract petroleum carriers are primarily towing for large oil companies either directly or indirectly. Many times when the voyage is half completed orders will be changed and discharging of cargoes will be made at other ports than originally specified. If the new port should be on a waterway on which the operator does not have a certificate, he could not complete his tow but would have to make arrangements to turn it over to a carrier having a certificate for the waterway involved. Such a procedure would unquestionably cause not only an increase of operating costs to the operator but an ultimate increase in cost to the consumer and delay in having the product reach its ultimate destination. In closing we would like to again repeat that we can see no reason why Congress should consider and pass legislation which would have the results as set forth above, and would benefit no one but those desiring to increase the Washington pay roll and to further increase the power of the big common carrier. We are, therefore, strongly opposed to the passage of such legislation and would appreciate anything that you can do to prevent such legislation. Yours very truly, B. & M. TOWING CO. By R. C. MEYER. Mr. M. W. ROWELL, CORNELIUS KROLL & Co., Houston, Tex., November 4, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ROWELL: It has come to our attention that there is a current attempt in Congress to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Commission the transportation of bulk commodities by water, which transportation was specifically excluded from the Transportation Act of 1940. The attempt is being made through Senate bill 1141, entitled "Extension of jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over waterway transportation of all dangerous cargo." The title of this Senate bill in itself, purporting to apply only to dangerous cargo, exposes the lack of forthrightness behind this proposed legislation. The implication of this title is that dangerous cargo is not now regulated. This, of course, is furtherest from the truth. So-called dangerous cargo, which, of course, includes petroleum and its products, is now rigidly controlled and regulated by the United States Coast Guard, who are not only already well organized to regulate and control the physical movement with the view of eliminating danger from so-called dangerous cargo but who have at least the equal, if not better, technical ability for such regulation and control than that which the Interstate Commerce Commission could provide. The safety record of this regulation and control on a basis of ton-miles moved will bear testimony as to the efficiency and efficacy of such control. The regulation and control of dangerous cargo is purely a physical one and must not be confused with an economic regulation. It is obvious from the title of this Senate bill that the Interstate Commerce Commission has camouflaged its intent at economic regulation as a control of physical danger only. Therefore, since this act in fact proposes to regulate the transportation by water of bulk cargo classed in this bill as dangerous cargo, and later of all bulk cargo, the following observations refer to the inadvisability of economic regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the transportation of bulk cargo. If the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission were extended over water transportation of bulk cargo, it would regulate rates and routes of such transportation. This would have the effect of the economic elimination of the small or medium operators now engaged in such transportation on account of the inherent peculiarities of the transportation of bulk cargo. Bulk cargo does not in general follow the same route. It is seasonal to a great extent. It requires specific equipment for specific commodities, eliminating to a great extent any back haul or two-way haul on a fixed route. On account of these changing conditions inherent in the transportation of bulk cargo, a small or medium operator exclusively engaged in bulk-cargo transportation could not economically exist on a fixed route. He must have the flexibility of placing his available specific equipment along such routes where this bulk cargo is available. The margins upon which the small or medium exclusively bulk-cargo operator operates is not large enough to cover the necessarily idle time that would result in being confined to a fixed route. The cost of such idle time would require an increase in rates, which would further reduce the available cargo and eventually eliminate entirely the operator who was exclusively a bulk carrier. Although that dire result in itself is sufficient reason for defeating Senate bill 1141, there is even a much more important reason, and that is the necessity for providing the public with the facilities of the bulk-cargo transporter, with the flexibility of rates and routes so necessary on account of the inherent peculiarities of bulk-cargo transportation. All the observations in connection with the effect on the bulk-carrier transporter apply with even greater import to the public, or beneficiary of such transportation. As already pointed out, the rates would necessarily be increased, which would be against the public good. Rate increases would also eliminate the movement of a certain proportion of the present movement, and if rates were not increased, the movement would be so unattractive to the existing common carriers who had inherited the business of the eliminated bulk-cargo carriers that the public could not obtain transportation for its bulk cargo at such times that it required it. We had a recent instance in our own experience where we continuously offered over a period of 8 months every common carrier on the Mississippi River a bulk cargo for transportation up the river from New Orleans to Lockport, Ill., at their published rates. Although we offered this business continuously there were no takers, with the net result that we had to perform this transportation ourselves with our own equipment. |