problems are quite different, in that one is a question of economic regulation, and the other one of safety. I think that the issue would be more clear cut, when the Congress debates the subject on the floor of the House or in the Senate, if it had two separate bills to think about rather than only one. But that is a matter of policy for the committee, and I am not able to determine that for you. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Gorrell.

Mr. WADSWORTH. May I ask a question right there?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Wadsworth.

Mr. WADSWORTH. You said that the element of safety was dependent upon greater expenditures or appropriations.

Mr. GORRELL. Yes.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Would you care to say how much money should be spent by the Government annually for a certain period in order to take care of that situation?

Mr. GORRELL. Sir, I welcome the opportunity to make that statement. I think with one stroke of the pen Congress can solve this problem of air safety and efficiency which is so fundamental. I think that it would take approximately $14,000,000 to do these jobs, if done in the usual way of making annual appropriations; but if it is done as the businessman would do it, it should not take more than about $10,000,000 to solve this whole problem.

The facts of the case are that, for 5 years, the Government has failed to try to keep its airway aids abreast of the art of flying, insofar as the development of that art has gone on in this industry. From 1927 to 1932, inclusive, an average of about a million and twothirds dollars a year had been spent in ground aids to air navigation. But, for the last 5 or so years, there has been practically nothing spent; for some of those years, it was absolutely zero; then $287,900; another year, $87,000; and last year but little cost has yet been expended. The Government is today about $8,000,000 behind where it belongs in constructing new aids and in studying the problem and methods and in the handling of this question.

For example, suppose you had bought a radio set for your home back in 1927 or 1928, and you sat down in your home tonight thinking that you would be able to hear the prize fight, but your antiquated set was so full of static that you could not hear it. You would probably turn that radio in and get a modern radio, much more perfected, so you could hear what it was all about.

Now, how good are a number of such antiquated radio devices on the airways? Some of the radio is entirely out of date, outmoded. Furthermore, there are enormous gaps where there are no radio beacons at all. In addition to that, you have a number of other angles of the airway-aid problem that need to be given attention. I told a congressional committee last February that, if the Government would spent $14,000,000 for safety and efficiency on the ground, the air lines would be willing to spend $15,000,000 for safety and efficiency above the ground. We have this year already spent about $11,000,000 for safety and efficiency above the ground, and we are going so to spend perhaps $15,000,000 next year. During the time that we have spent that $11,000,000, the Government has appropriated $832,000 for ground aids. I doubt if $600,000 has been spent; I believe that amount has perhaps been allocated to improve the ground aids, but certainly less than that amount has been so spent, as I understand it.

In my judgment, to fix up the ground aids, to make up for the time that the Government has been doing but so little on new construction-I would not say, not doing anything, because in 1 year, or 2 years, some work was done, but much money has been turned back to the Treasury after Congress appropriated it for aviation, Mr. WADSWORTH. Why was it not used?

Mr. GORRELL. It would take a better man than I am to answer that question. The appropriation was made by Congress, as I understand, but the money was not spent. But on this question of safety and efficiency in the air, to give you a little idea of the significance of the bill

Mr. COLE (interposing). Do I understand that would involve the use of aids for the Army and Navy as well?

Mr. GORRELL. It would when the Army and Navy were flying over the land.

Mr. COLE. I am talking about the aids you referred to.

Mr. GORRELL. The ground aids, you are speaking of?

Mr. COLE. Yes; would that involve the other Departments, Navy, and Army, for instance?

Mr. GORRELL. As they may use those aids when flying over the land.

Mr. COLE. Do they use them?

Mr. GORRELL. They do whenever they are flying over the land. The Army and the Navy, and the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard are not on scheduled flights. When they are flying over land, they would use these aids.

Mr. COLE. Are the departments you have mentioned, subject to any regulation by the Department of Commerce?

Mr. GORRELL. Yes, they are; they are subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Commerce pertaining to the safety methods of flying.

Mr. COLE. That does not apply to their own regulations?

Mr. GORRELL. That applies to safety regulations along the airways. Now, in answering the committee a little bit further I would appreciate it if I might direct your attention to the paragraphs on pages 17, 18, and 19 of Senate Report 185, of the Seventy-fifth Congress, first session. That is the best thing I have seen printed anywhere on this subject of ground aids for safety and efficiency. That recommendation appears to conform almost word for word in most of the paragraphs with the report of the Business Advisory Committee of the Department of Commerce, which examined this same subject and reported to the Secretary of Commerce in April or May of a year ago. There is nothing unknown or new in this subject.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether the witness could deal with this question of safety later on.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that be agreeable to you, Mr. Gorrell, to do that tomorrow?

Mr. GORRELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, Apr. 1, 1937, at 10 a. m.)

AVIATION

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1937

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. Clarence Lea (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
Colonel Gorrell, You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR S. GORRELL, PRESIDENT, AIR TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CHICAGO, ILL.-Resumed

Mr. GORRELL. Mr. Chairman, yesterday and the day before, certain questions were asked that have not yet been answered.

First among those questions, the chairman asked whether or not the United States was a party to any treaties pertaining to aviation, because, in this proposed bill, H. R. 5234, there is a statement that the Interstate Commerce Commission shall do nothing which would violate said treaties, I have here a booklet which I will hand to your committee for the purpose of answering that question. I presume you do not wish to put the whole book in the record. For the purpose of the record, I may briefly summarize it, and would suggest that you simply insert in the record the index page which gives the story.

The booklet contains data that set forth America's situation as to treaties pertaining to aviation, except in the case of the Cairo Convention, which deals with postal matters, and to which the United States is a signatory.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the author of this book?

Mr. GORRELL. The book has been compiled by an aviation company.

May I summarize the situation for you? I can do so in 1 or 2

moments.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will, then.

Mr. GORRELL. There was a convention called the Pan American Convention on Commercial Aviation signed at Havana, Cuba, on February 15, 1928, to which the United States is a signatory. There was the Warsaw Convention, which was a convention for the unification of certain rules relative to international transportation by air, signed at Warsaw on October 12, 1929, to which the United States is a signatory.

Then there was a convention relating to the unification of certain rules pertaining to aircraft, signed at Rome, Italy, May 29, 1933, to which the United States is not a signatory.

Also in Rome, on May 29, 1933, there was signed a convention for the unification of certain rules relating to damages caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface. To this, the United States is likewise not a signatory.

The CHAIRMAN. Were any of of those treaties ratified formally by the Senate?

Mr. GORRELL. Yes, sir.

The main international treaty to which the United States is not a party, which was not ratified by the United States, is the original International Convention on Aerial Navigation held in Paris in

1919.

I happened to be one of the American representatives at that convention and can tell you what was in it, although the United States never adopted it.

However, the United States does utilize many of the ideas laid down in that convention. That convention is the one which laid down the basic principle that governs every aviation conception that Congress should remember in legislating on overseas and foreign aviation. It was there laid down that the air was not free. The convention took place immediately after the World War. One of the European nations came to the convention thinking it did not want foreigners flying over certain fortifications it then had or might build. The other 22 nations attending originally wanted the air to be free. This one nation held out. Consequently, when its opinion prevailed, the convention adopted the principle that the air is not free. Such a thing as freedom of the seas does not exist in the air.

The CHAIRMAN. How many nations have gone into these treaties ratified by the United States?

Mr. GORRELL. Warsaw convention, 23 signatory nations, 24 ratifying states as of November 1, 1936; Habana convention, 11 ratifying states to date.

The CHAIRMAN. Speaking generally, what obligations does the United States assume under the treaties?

Mr. GORRELL. The conventions, to which I have just referred, are either in the nature of postal matters; interchangeable baggage tickets; interchangeable passenger tickets; liability; the question of what rules an aircraft must conform to when flying into a foreign country, where it will land, when it will land; and things of that nature. For further information I would suggest that the State Department be consulted.

The CHAIRMAN. Do those conventions establish any standard of safety, or govern the operation of planes on routes, or anything of that kind?

Mr. GORRELL. Within but certain limits, they do. In general safety is not included. The original Paris convention laid down the fact that in flying aircraft at night, you have to display a red light on the left wing, a green light on the right wing, and a white light on the tail. There are a number of such rules; thoughts which originally were copied from shipping and now have been brought into flying. They are elemental in character. There is nothing in them controlling the rules of safety in interstate air commerce. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed with your statement. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wadsworth.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Was there not a convention or a conference of some sort in London in the late autumn of 1935? I happen to know that our State Department sent representatives.

Mr. GORRELL. Sir, if it took the form of a convention or a treaty, it falls without the scope of my knowledge.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I am quite sure that it did not amount to a treaty.

Mr. GORRELL. There have been a number of other aviation international conferences of all kinds, for example, radio, liability, sanitary, public health, and so forth."

The last Congress appropriated money for United States delegates to attend a conference on aviation to be held at Lima, Peru. For some reason it did not take place. The present Congress will probably extend the appropriation to carry over to the next fiscal year. I understand that the conference may take place in September 1937. Mr. Chairman, if you please, day before yesterday Mr. Eastman left to me the answering of a certain half dozen points.

Yesterday, various members of the committee asked me different questions.

Also, I was asked to prepare to testify on safety.

With your permission, may I say that I have attempted to prepare, on each point, to answer the questions asked of me, to answer the questions left to me by Mr. Eastman, and to answer questions on safety matters.

If the committee has no objection, I would like to take up such matters in the following order. I hope that I may run through them rather quickly, and I trust that you may find my answers fairly complete.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. GORRELL. I have first thought of finishing the statement that I started yesterday, because it has in it one item that is rather important, namely, a couple of amendments which some of the smaller air lines have requested me to present and to which our other member air lines offer no objection.

Also, may I say that question may perhaps be raised as to the grouping of what is called "overseas commerce"; that is to say, commerce with the Territories; along with foreign commerce instead of with interstate commerce.

In that regard, it happens that there is a bill in the Senate making overseas and interstate the same. There is another bill in the Senate, a companion bill to H. R. 5234, that groups overseas with the foreign.

A glance at this world map seems to me to furnish the answer. The commerce with the Territories has grown up as a part of our foreign air commerce. The air routes to the Territories, with the single exception of the Pacific route, all pass through foreign territory en route to the Territories; and on all our overseas routes, including the route to the Orient, the Territories are only intermediate stops en route to more important foreign markets.

As to all of these routes, also, the air carriers are subject to largely unregulated competition by American and foreign steamship lines and to potential competition by foreign air lines.