This has meant that much-needed improvements have been postponed until after the war, or until additional funds become available. When procurement possibilities permit, there will be need for considerable rew equipment, housing facilities, and operating supplies to replace those which have been worn out and damaged or have become inadequate. Special need exists for the construction of a hospital on St. George Island and nine residences, five on St. Paul Island and four on St. George Island, to relieve crowded living conditions due to the increased population of native residents. It will be necessary to construct additional roads and rookery walks at the Pribilof Islands to facilitate fur seal and foxing activities of the Government. The fur-seal herd has grown to such a size that existing roads and rookery walks must be im proved and extended to enable the efficient conduct of expanded operations. There also is need for repairs to the old wharfs and construction of a new wharf on St. George Island. In addition there is need for a vessel of at least 1,000 tons capacity to act as tender for the Pribilof Islands for the carrying of cargo and passengers from the States, as required to maintain operations and maintenance of the two villages. At the present time transportation is dependent largely upon availability of naval or army vessels and is somewhat uncertain. Protection of the fur-seal herd has been effected chiefly through patrol by vessels of the United States Coast Guard, and includes periods while the herd is migrating between the latitude of southern California and Bering Sea, and also while it is at the Pribilof Islands. In normal years, vessels of the Division's fishery patrol fleet have assisted by patrolling the waters off the coast of Washington, and in the vicinity of Sitka, Alaska. At the present time, military restrictions on boat movements, and regular coastal patrols provide adequate protection for the fur-seals while they are at sea. To summarize briefly, the activities of the Division of Alaska Fisheries directly related to the war program are as follows: 1. Careful observation of fishery runs in Alaska to determine means of expanding production without endangering the future supply. 2. Cooperation with military authorities in coastal patrol in connection with the fishery management and law-enforcement program. 3. Cooperation with the limited staff of the Office of the Coordinator of Fisheries, in assisting fisherman and industry members with regard to priorities regulations, equipment allocations, surveys of floating equipment, and manpower and deferment problems, and closures of salmon trap sites by regulation pursuant to industry concentration programs. 4. Furnishing information to individuals interested in fishery operations, and encouragement for use of valuable fisheries heretofore not exploited to the extent possible. 5. Cooperation with the International Fisheries Commission in patrol and law enforcement work for protection of the halibut fishery of the North Pacific. 6. Production, on the Pribilof Islands, of high-grade seal oil for use in leather manufacture. 7. Production of seal meal, with high protein content, for use as an ingredient in stock and poultry feed. 8. Expansion of present rendering facilities on St. Paul Island to enable utilization of all fur-seal carcasses taken, double the output of meal, and substantially increase the production of oil. Mr. MCCANN. Does that complete the sections that you have introduced? Mr. HIGGINS. I would have to check that. Mr. MCCANN. Now, gentlemen, I am going to ask you to discuss any other phases of the report which you desire to comment on, in addition to the written report which has been received in the record. Mr. JACKSON. We have gone to a lot of trouble to give it to you in complete form, and I do not believe we have anything to add at this time. We have tried to make a very complete record in response to the request of the committee. Mr. MCCANN. Thank you. Mr. Carter, I believe you represent the United States Tariff Commission? STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. CARTER, UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Mr. MCCANN. I hand you a document which is dated June 1, 1944, and ask you to examine that and state whether it is the report of your department. Mr. CARTER. That looks exactly like the report we prepared. Mr. MCCANN. This will be received in evidence and will be reproduced at this point in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION, Washington, June 1, 1944. STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO FISHERIES The activities of the Tariff Commission are essentially investigative and advisory. They are in no sense regulatory. Under title III, part II, of the Tariff Act of 1930 (U. S. C. title 19, secs. 1330-1341) the Tariff Commission is vested with primary authority and responsibility for furnishing to the Houses of Congress, the President, and agencies in the executive branch of the Government, information regarding production in foreign countries, imports, and the effect of imports on United States industry and trade. This information includes not only the factual details but such analysis thereof as may be required by pending questions. The Tariff Commission has, however, no authority to change rates of duty nor to impose or remove trade regulations. In pursuance of its basic responsibility, the Tariff Commission keeps abreast of all current developments in the fishery industry that appear to have a bearing on our foreign trade, particularly imports. Likewise, we constantly study developments in the fishery industries of countries that are our main sources of imports of fishery products. As a result of this accumulation of data the Commission, when requested for spot information on a particular question, is generally able to comply without the need for extensive field investigation. Specific references to some of the more important fishery projects undertaken in recent years follow. Under the Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (U. S. C., title 19, sec. 1351-1354) the Tariff Commission is the principal source of information to assist the interdepartmental trade agreements organization with respect to products imported into the United States and the effects of imports on domestic industries. Several agreements under that law have involved important fisheries products, the most important of these agreements with respect to the fisheries having been the two agreements negotiated with Canada-one in 1935 and the other in 1938. The Tariff Commission furnished to the trade-agreements organization voluminous basic data regarding fishery products. During the war the Commission has been called upon to assist war agencies, particularly the War Food Administration, on fishery projects. As a typical case may be cited our work in connection with the salt cod allocation program which involved the distribution to various importing interests of the limited amount of salt codfish available for importation during the war. The Tariff Commission compiled an analysis of imports in a prior period which formed the basis for distributing quotas to importers. It also furnished advice with regard to the allocation order itself. Probably the most important fishery project of the Commission in recent years, from the point of view of effort required, has been the preparation of a report on the treaty history of the United States northeastern fisheries. Undertaken several years ago, and now ready for printing, the report deals in detail with the earlier troubled development of our northeastern fisheries industry and discusses the substance as well as the results of numerous treaties and executive agreements by which the rights of our New England fisheries to operate in British North American waters were aggressively and progressively fostered and protected. Probably no other industry of the United States has figured so prominently in international relations as our northeastern fisheries; nor have the development and prosperity of other industries been influenced to the degree that international relations have influenced these fisheries. The report referred to in the previous paragraph is expected to be of considerable assistance in the solution of our post-war international fishery problems. The Commission has also contributed a considerable amount of assistance to the State Department concerning technical matters that have arisen in our relations with other countries with respect to the fisheries. With regard to the request for suggestions to facilitate the development of United States fisheries, it seems clear that conservation is the most important single item. Such conservation measures as appear necessary can best be realized by cooperative action between nations with respect to high seas fisheries in which they have a common interest, and between contiguous States which share in a common fishery. It may be suggested, therefore, that the committee give early consideration to questions of conservation which require interstate or international cooperation. Mr. MCCANN. Mr. Carter, have you any statement to make at this time with respect to the activities of your Commission, or any explanation to make of this statement? Mr. CARTER. There is nothing that would add materially to what has been contained in that report, Mr. McCann. That broadly covers the scope of our activities at the present time. Mr. MCCANN. You have been in the course of preparing for several years, or for quite a while, a history of treaties which bear upon the fisheries; have you not? Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCANN. Have you completed that report? Mr. CARTER. The manuscript is at the Government Printing Office now. Mr. MCCANN. Will you furnish to the committee, as soon as you can, a copy of that volume? Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir. That will be furnished to the committee. Mr. MCCANN. I would appreciate it very much. We will put it in the file. Would you state just briefly what that volume includes? Mr. CARTER. Well, briefly stated, the fisheries have been the cause of considerable controversy between nations since before the independence of this country. I mean, fisheries related to North America. All of these treaties, of course, are on file in the State Department, but no Government agency heretofore has ever made an effort to compile a list of them, to bring them together to show the importance that the fisheries have played in the negotiation of a good many of these treaties. I might also say that there is no other industry in the United States that has played such an important part in international negotiations as fisheries, so we begin with the treaty of 1783, which was the Treaty of Independence and gave us certain rights on the coasts of British North America, and cronologically bring the treaties down to date with respect to the northeastern fisheries. We did not include the Pacific coast treaties, the halibut and salmon treaties, nor the Mexican treaty, which lasted about a year, I believe. This covers just the northeastern fisheries, the idea being to show some of the problems that confronted the industry throughout the years and the efforts that were made to solve them. Mr. MCCANN. Thank you very much. At this time I will receive in evidence a letter dated June 2, 1944, from Maj. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, Director of the Selective Service System. (The letter referred to is as follows:) 62788-44--8 Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, NATIONAL HEA SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 22, 1944, in which you requested a memorandum concerning the relationship of selective-service operations and policies to fisheries. Selective-service operations and policies with respect to fisheries are confined solely to the classification, deferment, rejection, or induction of registrants who are working in fisheries and related activities. In view of this limited relationship of Selective Service to fisheries, it is believed inappropriate for us to comment concerning the other points presented in yourt letter and which primarily pertain to the other agencies of the Government having a more direct and extensive relationship to fisheries. Sincerely yours, LEWIS B. HERSHEY, Director. Mr. MCCANN. A letter dated May 30, 1944, from Charles B. Henderson, Chairman of the Board of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, will be received in evidence. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, Washington, May 30, 1944. Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries of the House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PETERSON: This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1944, in which you requested a memorandum containing a summary of: (1) Reconstruction Finance Corporation activities pertaining to fisheries. (2) The effect upon Reconstruction Finance Corporation's activities with respect to fisheries of any regulations or orders of any other agency or department of the Federal Government. (3) Suggestions which would increase the development of fisheries products, their transportation, disposition, and use as foods and for industrial and agricultural purposes. (4) Legislation which would assist in the development of the fisheries industry. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation is authorized by section 15 of the act approved June 19, 1934, as amended, to make loans "under section 5 of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act, as amended,. * * * for the purpose of financing the production, storage, handling, packing, processing, carrying and/or orderly marketing of fish of American fisheries and/or products thereof upon the same terms and conditions and subject to the same limitations, as are applicable in the case of loans made under said section 5, as amended." Pursuant to this authority 128 loans, aggregating $7,128,509.51, have been authorized to commercial fisheries, sponge fisheries, and fish canneries. Private banks have participated to the extent of $1,992,900. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation in making these loans has not been affected by the regulations or orders of any other agency or department of the Federal Government. Inasmuch as Reconstruction Finance Corporation's activities with respect to fisheries have been confined entirely to the above-mentioned loans, I would not feel qualified so supply answers to questions (3) and (4). Sincerely, CHARLES B. HENDERSON. Mr. MCCANN. A letter dated May 30, 1944, from Ralph K. Davies, Deputy Petroleum Administrator, addressed to Mr. Peterson, will be received in evidence. (The letter referred to is as follows:) PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION FOR WAR, Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. PETERSON: This will acknowledge your letter of May 22 in which you inquire as to the activities of the Petroleum Administration for War so far as they pertain to the fishing industry. The Petroleum Administration is responsible for making petroleum supplies available for military and essential civilian uses. With respect to fisheries, it is our purpose to furnish the petroleum products that they need to maintain uninterrupted operations. You probably are familiar with the procedure under which gasoline and fuel oil are allocated, but for a full understanding, I should like to explain the part that this agency takes in such allocations. Prior to the beginning of each quarter of the year, the various claimant agencies, such as the Office of Civilian Requirements, War Food Administration, Office of Defense Transportation, and others, present to the Petroleum Administration for War their claims for gasoline, fuel oil, and other petroleum products that will be required during the ensuing quarter. Claims for fisheries are established by the Office of Civilian Requirements, and I am glad to inform you that we have been able to provide the amounts requested, and we have received no complaints of a deficiency of products for their use. As a matter of fact, we have been particularly mindful of the value of fish in the food program, and have on several occasions diverted petroleum products from one area to another in order to meet the requirements of commercial fishing enterprises. When the Petroleum Administration for War has made its allocations of available supplies, the Office of Price Administration determines the details of the rationing procedure to see that these supplies are properly channeled and divided among the various consumers. It is my understanding that the Office of Price Administration rationing system does not restrict the use of petroleum products in commercial fishing vessels which have been established as being operated solely for the purpose of producing fish. I do not wish to imply that products for this use are excluded from the rationing program. However, the program does provide for the issuance of sufficient ration coupons to such consumers to meet their minimum requirements. I hope that this will clarify our position in the matter. If not will you please let us know in what particular you wish further information. Sincerely yours, RALPH K. DAVIES, Deputy Petroleum Administrator. Mr. MCCANN. A letter dated May 25, 1944, from William J. Patterson, Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, will be received in evidence. (The letter referred to is as follows:) INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Washington, May 25, 1944. Hon. J. HARDIN PETERSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES AFFECTING FISHERIES DEAR MR. PETERSON: This will acknowledge your letter of May 22 addressed to Commissioner Alldredge who was chairman in 1943. Your letter refers to testimony of Secretary Ickes before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on May 13, 1943, at which time he referred to an interdepartmental committee formed in 1942, the purpose of which committee was to coordinate Federal activities affecting the fishery industry. By Executive order of July 18, 1942, each of a considerable number of agencies was directed to designate a liaison officer for the purpose of keeping the Office of Fishery Coordination currently informed on plans or operations of such agencies which may have to do directly with the fishery industry. The Commission appointed such a liaison officer who attended a number of meetings of the general fishery committee then organized. However, inasmuch as the only duty entrusted to the Interstate Commerce Commission by the Congress is the carrying out of the provisions |