WEISINGER-BROWN-BOETGER & MCCOLLUM, Houston 1, Tex., November 10, 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 are the owners of one tugboat that we operate for hire, towing bulk cargo for various and sundry owners to and from various points of destination located on the Houston Ship Channel, the Gulf Coast, Intracoastal Canal, Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. We have been performing this type of service for something over 30 months. Our observation leads us to believe that the Coast Guard has been doing an outstanding job. We feel that if this bill becomes a law that a great injustice will be done to the Coast Guard as well as the small operators. The transfer of jurisdiction over this type of cargo to the Interstate Commerce Commission will tend to bog our operations as well as thousands of other small operators in a mass of red tape. We urgently request that you use all influence at your command to defeat the passage of the above numbered bill as it can readily be seen that it would be impossible for us to operate under the provisions of such an act and that we would be forced out of business. We will appreciate your advising us if there is any additional information desired by you or your committee that we can furnish that will be of material aid or benefit in defeating such a bill. Very truly yours, WEISINGER-BROWN-BOETGER & MCCOLLUM, Mr. M. W. ROWELL, EDWARDS TRANSPORTATION CO., Houston 3, Tex., November 3, 1947. Executive Director of the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are alarmed at the present attempt of certain factions to push through Senate bill 1141 entitled "Extension of jurisdiction of the Interstate Commission over waterway transportation of dangerous cargoes." The damaging results of such regulation and the absence of necessity for such legislation are so apparent that we feel sure that other marine transporters have discussed them thoroughly in their protests to your committee but each are of such importance that we summarize our views as follows: 1. Adequate regulations already exist.-The Coast Guard now has authority over all phases of inland water transportation. Their personnel has the long experience necessary and adequate facilities for effective control of dangerous cargoes. Any granting of authority to another agency would result in overlapping of authority, conflicting and confusing regulations, and resultant lowering of safety records. 2. Congress rejected I. C. C. regulation of bulk cargoes.-Before enacting the Transportation Act of 1940, Congress studied the granting of control of Inland Waterway Transportation and wisely rejected their attempts to gain power. Conditions have not changed since 1940. 3. Alleged desire to control dangerous cargoes is a sham.-Proponents of the bill urge its passage not through desire to reduce accidents but only as a method of allowing ICC to obtain an entering wedge which can be used to obtain a strangle hold on marine transportation and finally through hamstringing regulations increase costs of operations, forcing rise in tariffs to the detriment of the public and enrichment of other less economical means of transportation. 4. Most inland marine transportation is not dangerous cargo. Proponents of the bill are taking advantage of the publicity given a few recent outstanding explosions and claiming that adequate control is not now available and in operation. The type of cargo involved in these accidents represents only a small percentage of the tonnage which ICC considers as so-called dangerous cargo. Included as dangerous cargo are petroleum and its products. Of the millions of barrels of petroleum transported there has been very few accidents that could be contributed to the explosive nature of the product. Our company in the past 8 years has transported approximately 12.000.000 barrels of gasoline and crude oil without a single accident or casualty being caused by explosion or fire or that resulted in explosion or fire. Contrary to popular belief, a cargo of petroleum is relatively safe and should not be classed as a dangerous cargo. In our many years of operations and observation of handling of petroleum cargoes, we have not heard of more than a few cases of explosion of a cargo while in transit. A cargo may catch afire but seldom explodes. It is the empty vessel at the shipyard undergoing repairs and being neglectfully handled that gives our industry adverse publicity. Neither the transporter or the vessel has any control over such cases. The Coast Guard with the cooperation of the shipyards has recently concentrated on the elimination of shipyard casualties. Even including shipyard accidents, the safety record of our industry is remarkably high considering the tremendous volume of cargo handled. 5. Small operators will be forced out of business. One of the greatest factors in enabling our industry to render economical service to our customers is the close cooperation between producers and transporters in working out the various problems at each loading and discharging point and fitting the proper equipment to each job to the mutual advantage of both. Fluctuations in the requirements of our customers are drastic and availability of equipment constantly changes and requires daily revision of schedules and in many instances the rerouting of a cargo while in transit. We are firm in our belief that Senate bill 1141 will be the beginning of a strangulation process through which our industry will be forced out of existence. Follow up legislation will strait-jacket our operations, nullifying our attempts to serve our customer at a price he can pay and force him to other means of transportation at a higher cost. We urge your rejection of Senate bill 1141. EDWARDS TRACSPORTATION Co., By C. W. EDWARDS. Mr. M. W. ROWELL, Houston 2, Ter., November 4, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, DEAR MR. ROWELL: Our attention has been called to Senate bill 1141, extension of jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over waterway transportation of all dangerous cargo, now pending before the Eightieth Congress. We are unalterably opposed to any legislation that would place restrictions on carriers engaged in the transportation of bulk commodities. Should bulk transportation be placed under jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission the obtaining of permits for various routes would be almost an impossibility for a majority of the small independent operators who are now engaged in contract hauling for one or more producer and refiner. The enactment of such legislation would add to the cost of operations in submitting various reports and tariffs that bulk carriers are not now burdened with. Bulk carriers are now free to negotiate contracts without publishing rates and without necessity of obtaining permits for specific routes thus making such operations more flexible and competitive. As a result cheap freight rates are enjoyed by all who are served by our great waterway system. No benefit whatsoever would accrue from placing bulk carriers under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. We are at all times opposed to any legislation that would increase bureaucratic control of business without benefiting the public as a whole. We therefore respectfully solicit your best efforts in having Senate bill 1141 defeated. Respectfully, ANDERSON PETROLEUM TRANSPORTATION Co., Hon. M. W. ROWELL, CHARLES C. SMITH CO., Houston 2, Tex., November 5, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. YOUR HONOR: We desire to enter our protest against the adoption of Senate bill 1141, which would give to the Interstate Commerce Commission the right to supervise the transportation of various commodities, including petroleum and petroleum products. This transportation is now being supervised by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation of the United States Coast Guard, and we have not heard any criticism or complaints about the Coast Guard supervision over such trans portation. There is not one good reason which can be advanced for the transfer of the Coast Guard activities to the Interstate Commerce Commission, except the possibility that this transfer of jurisdiction could be used as an entering wedge to give the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction over rates, permits, and certificates for the transportation of petroleum and petroleum products which are now completely exempted from regulation. We have read an analysis of side lights on regulation of petroleum and petroleum products by the Interstate Commerce Commission, prepared by Rene A. Stiegler, of New Orleans, insofar as it pertains to a probable classification as between common and contract carriers. If we could properly classify ourselves, we could say that we are now partially common carriers and partially contract carriers. From what we have seen of Interstate Commerce Commission regulations, no water carrier now has the right, on commodities other than oil, to be both a common and a contract carrier of the same commodity in the same waterways. Thus, with this precedent which has already been established with respect to virtually every water carrier in the United States, it is only reasonable to assume that if petroleum and petroleum products were to be regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission that we could no longer perform the same kind of transportation which we now perform, but we would have to choose whether we would prefer to be common or contract carriers, and even after we chose what we preferred, we would still be subject to a final classification by the Interstate Commerce Commission, regardless of what we chose to be. When the undersigned placed his life's savings in the business which bears his name, it was with the thought that the great American principle of free enterprise would prevail. The placing of restrictions on the transportation of oil, similar to those restrictions that now exist with respect to general commodities, can only result in disaster to many small independent companies, and, in our opinion, it will merely encourage the oil companies to go extensively into the field of performing their own transportation, thereby eliminating from the competitive field many of the small businesses which are now fighting for their very existence. Yours very truly, CHARLES C. SMITH, By Charles C. Smith. NATIONAL OIL TRANSPORT CORP., SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We refer to Senate bill S. 1141 which, if passed, will transfer the regulation of water carriage of "dangerous commodities" from the Coast Guard to the Interstate Commerce Commission. As a contract carrier of petroleum products on the inland waterways we strongly object to this bill for the following reasons: 1. We see no reason to believe that the Interstate Commerce Commission can regulate the carriage of petroleum or other "dangerous" commodities by water more efficiently than the Coast Guard. On the contrary, the Coast Guard, and particularly its Division on Marine Inspection and Navigation, has a background of long experience in this regard which the ICC lacks. Moreover, the transfer will result in the maintenance of dual inspection agencies, as the Coast Guard will still be responsible for inspection of those vessels exempted from this bill, which exemptions include tank vessels and vessels not engaged in interstate commerce. 2. Secondly, and even more important, we fear that the real purpose of this bill is to serve as an opening wedge for more complete regulation by the ICC of the carriage of petroleum and other bulk products by water, which operations are now exempt from the Transportation Act of 1940. It is our earnest opinion that the regulation or rates and routes of petroleum barging contractors, most of whom fall into the small-business category, would be disastrous to such carriers and inimical to public interest. These carriers have performed a remarkable public service and are in a healthy condition largely because of the flexibility they have had in the matters of routes and rates. The nature of the business is such that equipment must be shifted at times between widely separated areas if a contractor is to keep busy. On the other hand, if he becomes frozen to certain routes on which he is able to establish "grandfather" rights he may well be forced out of business in favor of a larger operator who has rights over a larger area. As evidence of the efficiency of petroleum barges under freedom from control, it may be pointed out that, in general, present barging rates are well under the wartime ceilings, a condition which does not exist in most industries. Very truly yours, Hon. WALTER C. PLOESER, NATIONAL OIL TRANSPORT CORP. By A. W. FREY. THE OHIO RIVER CO., Cincinnati, Ohio, November 24, 1947. Chairman, Select Committee on Small Business, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to call your attention to Senate bill 1141 which proposes to transfer from the United States Coast Guard to the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction over transportation by water carriers of so-called dangerous cargo, be it liquid or dry, bulk or packaged. Although the Interstate Commerce Commission now has authority over dangerous cargo transported by railroads and motor trucks, we feel it does not necessarily follow that the Commission should be given similar authority over. dangerous cargo moving by water. Under the Transportation Act of 1940, the movement of bulk commodities by water is exempt from regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. If S. 1141 or similar legislation is enacted, a paradoxical situation would develop, as the transportation of dangerous cargo only by water would be subject to regulation by the ICC regardless of whether it be transported in bulk or by water carriers not otherwise subject to the ICC under the Transportation Act of 1940. Since the movement of dangerous cargo by water is under jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard and thus the Government's interest is already being safeguarded by one of its agencies, it would appear that the real purpose of S. 1141 is to use it as a subterfuge to eliminate the present exemption of bulk commodities and thereby make bulk carriers subject to regulation' by the Interstate Commerce Commission. If it is now the desire of Congress to regulate bulk commodities transported by water, then why should Congress not be forthright and say that that is what it wants to do. Why does it have to use devious means such as S. 1141, for instance, to do indirectly what it may not be able to do directly. The entire world has become almost "punch drunk" from this sort of action by governments. I think it would be a fine thing if our Congress and our Government would set an example for straightforward dealings. The public interest does not today require regulation of bulk commodities moving by water any more than it did 7 years ago when Congress saw fit to make the exemption in the Transportation Act of 1940. We seek your support in opposing enactment of S. 1141, and we hope we may have it. Very truly yours, Mr. M. W. ROWELL, M. CREDITOR. SIMPSON OIL CO., INC., Charleston, Mo., November 5, 1947. Executive Director, Committee on Small Business of Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ROWELL: We have just learned of Senate bill 1141, extension of jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission over waterways transportation of all dangerous cargo, and this attempt to regulate all forms of bulk carriers is very alarming to us. We operate some oil terminals on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and haul petroleum products to them, and sometimes for others. This "dangerous cargo" would therefore include petroleum and its products, and should be a very serious threat to the existence of our business of hauling these petroleum products. The Simpson Oil Co., Inc., owns 1 boat and 3 barges, and operates 2 other boats and 12 more barges. We haul petroleum products to our terminals at New Madrid, Mo., Cape Girardeau, Mo., and one which we are operating at Peoria, Ill. We also haul to the Terminal Oil Co. at Sulphur Springs, Mo., which is an affiliated company. Our business is such that we do not know exactly which rivers we will operate on at any time. We have exchanges with other oil companies; a lot of times we go up the Ohio River to Evansville, Ind.; sometimes we go to St. Louis, unload, may have to go to Woodriver and on up to Peru or Lamont on the Illinois River. Any regulation of this sort would tend to narrow our operations and deal us a death blow in our business enterprise. In 1940 a transportation act was written which provides specifically that carriers engaged in the transportation of bulk commodities shall not be subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. This portion of the law was written only after thorough consideration had been given to the inherent peculiarities of bulk transportation by water, which was such as to preclude conclusively the enactment of a regulatory statute which would be fair to all concerned. There has been no change in conditions in this type of traffic since the Transportation Act of 1940 became law. Since the conditions are the same now as they were then, we cannot see why this should be changed. Since July 1942, the United States Coast Guard has had exclusive supervision over the transportation by water of millions upon millions of barrels of petroleum and its products. All of this has been transported upon the inland rivers with an enviable safety record. There has been an exceedingly small percentage of accidents to equipment and personnel as compared to the tonnage carried. We feel that the Coast Guard has done a good job and that they should not be relieved of handling a job with which they are now thoroughly familiar. In connection with this, if this bill were passed, there would be no material reduction in Coast Guard personnel, yet it would add more personnel to the load the taxpayers are carrying. To prevent destroying our transportation system, for these and other reasonswhich we will not take your time to relate—we will appreciate your doing everything possible against this dangerous bill, and help keep it from getting any headway whatsoever. Sincerely, Mr. M. W. ROWELL, SIMPSON OIL CO., INC., EDDIE ERLBACHER MACHINE & TRANSPORTATION CO., Executive Director, Committee on Small Business, MY DEAR MR. ROWELL: We desire to register with you our objection to Senate bill 1141. We understand that the purpose of this bill is to give the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction over waterway transportation of all dangerous cargo. We feel like we are pioneers in the operation of diesel engine towboats on the Mississippi River and opening up the field for river traffic for shippers of bulk commodities in the inland waterways. We know that the railroads have been jealous of the services we have rendered in commerce, but we do not believe that we should be driven off the river after we have demonstrated that river transportation is economical to the public and profitable to the carrier. We do not understand why our business was exempt by the Transportation Act of 1940 and why now an attempt is beeing made to put us within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. We and those who are in the same kind of business we are in have furnished necessary transportation service of a vital commodity during the war years. The Interstate Commerce Commission would not permit us the right to operate under the Transportation Act of 1940 on the ground that we were exempt. Why |