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, and 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. TESTIMONY OF HARRY J. COLLINS, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, KOCH-ELLIS MARINE CONTRACTORS, NEW ORLEANS, LA. Mr. COLLINS. I just wish to concur in the statements made by Mr. Jordan of the Canal Barge Co., and Mr. Stiegler, and add that we are one of the companies Mr. Jordan was referring to, that applied for Interstate Commerce Commission permit on the basis of grandfather rights. I think we struggled with them for a period of approximately 2 years. We obtained a limited right to lease barges under certain conditions to certain operators that were not common carriers. In return for this right, the regulations that were imposed on us were unbearable. We had to observe all the regulations, it seemed to me, that would be imposed on a business as large as the Federal Barge Line. Our business operates with an office force of one stenographer, myself part time, and Captain Koch, who is our president, part time. We were not able to continue under that set-up without obtaining more help. We are fearful that in our operation, as varied as it is, extending over the entire southern district, if we were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and confined to a particular area of operation, as Mr. Jordan said, when the pipe line or any other mode of transportation decided to take our place in that area, we would not have any business, and we would be out, completely out. That about covers our position on this matter. Mr. FORISTEL. You are not objecting, then, to the bill itself; but you are objecting to any type of regulation by ICC? Mr. COLLINS. Certainly we are. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses? (No response.) Mr. FORISTEL. Before you all leave: I believe you have traveled far, and I should like to suggest to the chairman that you should put your names, and those of your companies, in the record, together with a notation as to whether you concur. All of these men have come long distances at their own expense, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be glad to concur in that suggestion. Each of you may file a statement, if you wish, which will be printed in the record; and those who have spoken may, should you so desire, give us an additional statement. I would prefer that you keep the statements brief, but we want any information that will enlighten the committee in its understanding of the question. That also applies to the Interstate Commerce Commission. (The names and addresses of those appearing in support of the testimony given by the contract barge operators are as follows:) D. A. Wright, Lake Tankers Corp., New York. A. W. Frey, general traffic manager, National Oil Transport Corp., 25 Broadway, New York. M. A. Tarrant, Edwards Transportation Co., Houston, Tex. A. S. Michling, A. S. Michling Barge Line, Joliet, Ill. John J. Harris, doing business as Augustus B. Harris & Son, 4933 Magazine Street, New Orleans, La. Rush H. Limbaugh, Cape Meridian, Mo., Missouri Barge Line Co. Eddie Erlbacher Machine & Transportation Co., Cape Meridian, Mo. J. S. Bracewell, 1406 Sterling Building, Houston, Tex., attorney for Green's Bayou Transportation, 5303 Navigation Boulevard, Houston, Tex. H. G. Simpson, Charleston, Mo., Simpson Oil Co., Inc., and Simpson Towing Co., Charleston, Mo. James A. Finch, Cape Girardeau, Mo., representing Simpson Oil Co., Inc., and Simpson Towing Co., Charleston, Mo. J. C. Werner, Jr., president, Baton Rouge Coal & Towing Co., Baton Rouge, La. Mayo Camulette, representing Camulette Towing Co., Slidell, La. Oscar Lane, western manager, Lake Tankers Corp. R. V. Warner, Warner & Tremble Transportation Co., Memphis, Tenn. Grey Scroggins, Chooney Court & Towing Co., Lake Charles, La. Joseph Chotin, Chotin & Phan Towing Co., Inc., Benwich Bay Towing Co., Inc., New Orleans, La. R. C. Meyer, B & M Towing Co., Houston, Tex. John D. Jones, vice president, C. J. Dick Towing Co., Houston, Tex. H. I. Costeel, member, C. J. Dick Towing Co., Houston, Tex. J. H. Colle, assistant manager, Colle Towing Co., Inc., Pascagoula, Miss. F. B. Zigler, president, G. B. Zigler Co., Jennings, La. Bailey T. DeBardeleben, general manager, operations, Coyle Lines, Inc., New Orleans, La. M. B. Wright, vice president, G. B. Zigler Co., Jennings, La. W. R. Parker, Parker Bros. & Co., Houston, Tex. Mr. FORISTEL. Also, Mr. Chairman, we have here considerable correspondence in opposition to the measure, and I should like to ask that the letters of the individuals and organizations also be included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. (The letters referred to follow :) GREENS BAYOU TRANSPORTERS, Houston 1, Tex., November 7, 1947. Re: Senate bill 1141, pending in the Senate of the United States before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce introduced by Mr. White. Hon. M. W. ROWELL, Executive Director of the Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: This company is engaged in renting barges and tugs for the transportation of bulk cargo, to wit: petroleum, on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and Intracoastal Canal. We likewise charter tugs for some of our own tows. Our business would be immediately and directly affected by this measure. We have been in operation for 3 years under the present system of supervision by the Coast Guard. We do not see that it has not worked well. Certainly there is much less red tape and governmental interference than is usually incident to Federal supervision. The greatest threat to business, and particularly small business is Government interference. Not than anyone objects to reasonable regulations, but it is the long delays, the expenses in attending hearings in distant cities when we are urgently needed in our own business, the hiring of experts and wire pullers, that absolutely makes it impossible to compete with the large concerns. As Mr. Harry B. Jordon so well pointed out in his memorandum of November 5, the annulment of the privilege of changing the destination of a cargo to a point not designated in the permit would put a large number of operators out of business. All the business would inevitably drift to a few large carriers with permits covering many points. We will thank you to keep us advised of the progress of this measure and also as to anything we may do to help defeat it. Very truly yours, GREENS BAYOU TRANSPORTERS, 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 |