This

"During the year 1934, 29,701 tons of raw tuna were received at the different canneries, 5,721 tons of raw mackerel, and 1,905 tons of raw sardines. makes the total receipts of raw fish received by the canners, 37,327 tons. "The pack of canned goods in weight approximated the following tonnage:

Canned tuna_
Canned mackerel.

Canned sardines_.

Total, canned goods...

Tons

15, 282 3, 837 304

19, 423

"There are no actual figures available, but about 80 percent of this tonnage moved through the harbor of San Diego. The proportion that went into the Gulf is not available, but you can see that there was a tremendous tonnage going out of the San Diego Harbor.

'If we cannot secure the return of terminal rates to the Gulf from San Diego, it means not only a very serious blow to the San Diego canners, which we believe is San Diego's major industry, but it also means a very greatly reduced tonnage to move through San Diego Harbor."

Your careful consideration of the foregoing will be appreciated, and it is, of course, hoped that some corrective measures may be adopted to overcome the predicament presented by the San Diego canners, not only for the continuance of their industry, but also because of what it means to the continued employment of hundreds of workers in the various canneries and the fishermen supplying the industry in and around San Diego.

BRIEF OF JAMES G. CONWAY, PRESIDENT, ATLANTIC COAST & GULF OF MEXICO Tow BOAT ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY

The Atlantic Coast & Gulf of Mexico Tow Boat Association, a membership organization whose membership comprises 101 towboat companies operating 506 towboats in the ports of the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida and the United States ports of the Gulf of Mexico, respectfully requests that it be recorded as being opposed to H. R. 5379, introduced by Mr. Rayburn, proposing amendments to the Interstate Commerce Act, to permit the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish regulations for the transportation of passengers and property by water carriers operating in interstate and foreign commerce. Our particular interest in the bill is as to its effect on common and contract carriers by water in interstate commerce as defined.

Towboats operated by our members supply power for the movement of vessels without propelling power of their own. They are an economic necessity in the movement of oil barges, coal and grain boats, cement barges, steel scows, and the other numerous types of nonpropelled vessels used in the transportation of bulk commodities about harbors and on the tributary waters of our ports. They are indispensable to the docking and undocking of steamships, to the movement of such vessels when entering or leaving port, and to their movements from point to point about a harbor.

By reason of the inclusive terms of the words "vessels" and "facilities" as defined in section 203 of the bill, towboats and their operations are included and we therefore view with concern the provisions of H. R. 5379 as written. It is clearly evident that no study has been made of the public value of the towboat. It is apparent that no consideration has been given to the absolute necessity of this type of vessel in the general scheme of transportation, nor to the utter destruction this unusual piece of legislation will impose on this form of waterway transportation. From the viewpoint of the towboat operator the proposed regulations are written with a view to providing benefits to other forms of transportation at the expense of that by water.

The operations of towing companies may be carried out under agreements, contracts, or charters, or as the result of hire for compensation for a particular job. They would therefore, we believe, if H. R. 5379 is enacted into law, come within the meaning of the term "interstate common carrier by water" which is defined in section 203 (D) as "any water carrier which holds itself out to transport passengers or property, or any class or classes thereof, in interstate commerce, for compensation or hire" and also within the meaning of the term "interstate

contract carrier by water" which is defined in paragraph E of section 203 as "any water carrier which transports passengers or the property of others, in interstate commerce for compensation or hire, under a charter, contract, agreement, or arrangement but which is not an interstate common carrier by water." By the terms of section 210 (a) of the bill, a common carrier must hold": tificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission" and under paragraph (g) of the same section "no interstate contract carrier shall engage in interstate transportation unless it holds a permit issued by the Commission and authorizing such operation."

a cer

We hold that any such arbitrary segregation of the business of the towing industry would be ruinous to the industry. We cannot too forcefully stress the fact that towing companies must be free at all times to operate their equipment in any capacity in order that revenues may be adequate to maintain a proper basis of rates, To compel them to operate either as common or contract carriers, without the right to operate as either or both would mean the immediate elimination of many companies.

This would be particularly true of the operators in the smaller ports. There is not a sufficient volume of any one kind of business to sustain them either as common or contract carriers and yet such companies must be permitted to operate in order to supply a public demand for a public necessity.

We also believe it imperative to stress the necessity of towboats being free at all times to operate in any capacity in order to preserve life and conserve property. During and after storms, when winter ice conditions are present and when operations must be carried out despite adverse conditions of both wind and tide, it often becomes necessary to concentrate on one operation, a number of boats, that may be the property of several different companies. To deny the right of one company that may, under the provisions of H. R. 5379, be compelled to operate only as a common carrier, would often place both lives and property in jeopardy. It is true that dual operations may be permitted upon application to the Commission, if in the opinion of the Commission, the "granting of such application will be in the public interest and consistent with the policy declared in section 202", which section is the declaration of the policy of the bill and Congress, but inasmuch as both common and contract carriers are so clearly defined, together with all the declared provisions under which they will be permitted to operate, it seems questionable as to whether dual operation may become an actual fact.

The commodities clause (sec. 214) of the bill would be particularly destructive to the towing industry. This clause states that it will be unlawful for any common or contract carrier by water to transport in interstate commerce any article or commodity in which such carrier may have any direct or indirect interest, or with which it may be affiliated. In other words, a towing company having any interest whatsoever in any article or commodity would, under the provisions of section 214, have to apply for a registration as a private carrier. As a private carrier a towing company would be prohibited by law from engaging in any of the activities by means of which such company may have built up its present organization. The immediate effect of any such legislation would mean the utter destruction of many small operators, and a breaking down of the organized structures of the larger companies.

Section 210 of the bill states that common carriers shall operate only over authorized routes and that the Commission shall have control over the extension of such routes and the furnishing of additional equipment. Applying these restrictions to the towing industry, simply means the elimination of such carriers. If a company is to operate as a common carrier, it must be at liberty to accept business when and where it originates. Due to the vagaries of wind and tide, it often becomes necessary that towing companies must concentrate their equipment to complete operations, which conditions might call for a change of route and additional equipment.

In defense of an important industry, the Atlantic Coast & Gulf of Mexico Tow Boat Association respectfully requests that tow boats and their operations of whatsoever kind or character, shall be immediately stricken from the provisions of H. R. 5379, until such time as a true and comprehensive study shall be made of this very important industry. The bill as written foreshadows the utter destruction of the industry, the confiscation of millions of dollars of invested capital to say nothing of the elimination of thousands of men from employment.

BRIEF OF A. LANE CRICHER, COUNSEL, MERCHANDISE WAREHOUSING TRADE CODE AUTHORITY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

THE RELATION OF WAREHOUSING TO TRANSPORTATION CARRIERS, AND OF TRANSPORTATION CARRIERS TO THE WAREHOUSING INDUSTRY

This memorandum concerns the Water Carrier Act of 1935, known as "S. 1632". Our industry takes no position on the entire bill, as we are interested only in that part of the bill which concerns wharfingers, and in particular, the warehousing operations of wharfingers. We favor their inclusion in the act, and feel that their regulation by Federal agency is necessary and will be in the public interest. The terminal operations (piers, wharves, docks, and warehouse facilities) at the various ports of the United States are under varied management and control. Some are operated or managed by private terminal companies, many by railroad, steamship, or water enterprises, and a great number of ports have such enterprises under municipal or State management and control. All of these operations are subject to regulation in the public interest by reason of their direct effect upon interstate commerce and distribution of commodities in domestic and foreign commerce. The railroad-owned terminals are under a degree of regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission; similarly, the steamship-owned terminals are to a degree under the United States Shipping Board regulatory measures; private terminal operations, insofar as their warehousing operations are concerned, come under the provisions of the Merchandise Warehousing Trade Code. There is no regulation for that portion of these terminal operations now managed or operated by municipal or State-owned companies.

In Ex parte 104, part VI, the Interstate Commerce Commission, on its own motion, investigated the terminal and warehousing practices of the railroads in the city of New York in particular. As a result of that investigation, the direct admonition was made to the carriers to cease and desist their practices of storing or handling commodities at greatly out-of-pocket cost, this especially because the line-haul revenues of the carriers were so depleted that in some instances there were practically no revenues from line haul remaining.

There has been little or no change in the situation since the issuing of Ex parte 104, part VI, due in large measure, and in our opinion primarily, to the fact that there has been no method of placing the municipally or State-owned enterprises on a fair competitive basis with the railroad-owned or private terminal and warehouse operator. Any losses accruing to the municipal or State warehouse operation are made up at the expense of the taxpayers. Private capital has suffered tremendously as a result and further, the admonition of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the railroads to place their charges on a compensatory basis has been impossible of achievement. These statements are not the presentation of a belief, but are simply statements of fact which have been found to be true through the recent investigations (covering the last 8 months) of the executive and traffic assistant to the Federal Coordinator of Transportation. Through many conferences, and through facts determined in cooperation with Mr. Eastman's office, and through facts determined in cooperation with Mr. Eastman's office, the Merchandise Warehousing Grade Code Authority has found that this "hub," the terminal and warehouse operator, who stands "in the very gateways of commerce" handling goods moved by rail, water, and truck, and interchanged between the various forms of transport, is in position to and does directly affect, and in many instances completely controls, traffic movement and storage en route, or in distribution, to the detriment of the regulated, or partly regulated, common or contract carrier of goods, and to the detriment of the competing private warehouseman or terminal operator.

This is simply setting forth in another way what probably has been brought to your attention through testimony or facts submitted to your committee by the office of the Federal Coordinator of Transportation.

The Merchandise Warehousing Trade Code which has been effective for a period slightly over a year, includes provisions affecting between 1,400 and 1,500 merchandise warehousemen throughout the United States. They are located largely in proportion to the population of each part of the country and compete directly, not only with one another, but also with the terminal warehousing operations of railroads and steamship companies, and municipally or State-owned enterprises. The United States Shipping Board, through its docket 126, inter

coastal investigation, is endeavoring to bring about fair competitive practices among the ship-owned terminals. The Interstate Commerce Commission has long endeavored to bring about compensatory operation of railroad-owned terminals in the public interest; there appears no authority, except code provisions, for the regulation of competition between these and the privately owned terminal and warehousing operations, and the National Recovery Administration has not seen fit to require compliance with the Merchandise Warehousing Trade Code provisions by the municipally, or State-owned warehousing enterprises-this is the fact of the fact that the code provisions clearly read and were written to include the same.

There appears, therefore, but one way left to the merchandise warehousing trade to secure equitable or fair competition for the protection of its heavy investment throughout the United States. Bear in mind that this trade, in cooperation with the President and Congress in the recovery program, has contributed by a 30-percent increase in its employment and pay roll to economic recovery. It is, however, still confronted with unfair competition from the municipally and State-owned terminal and warehousing operations. Unless this particular factor, and there is seldom more than one State or municipal operation in a locality is controlled, and unless provision is made whereby these proprietary activities of States and municipalities in terminal and warehousing operations are compelled to adhere to the same degree and kind of regulation to which their competitors are subjected, the entire principle of regulation of rates for common carriers by rail, and fair-trade practice regulations for private industry, and the varying degrees of regulation for water transportation or truck companies, must fail in these localities because of the unlimited and uncontrolled destructive activities of some of the municipally and State-owned enterprises.

For example: At San Francisco a municipal terminal and warehousing operation competes directly with a nearby private terminal and warehousing operation. The private terminal operator must file his rates and charges, and comply with the fair-trade practice provisions of the Merchandise Warehousing Trade Code. The proprietary activity of the municipality does not do so and gets the business. Railroad-owned and operated terminals, in competition with municipally controlled enterprises must meet the uncontrolled competitive practices of the municipal plant. The railroad-owned warehouse, just like the privately owned terminal operation, does not have the means of taxing the public in its locality, or State, to meet its deficits. These deficits from the operation must come out of the railroad line-haul rates, and this is directly contrary to the basic principles and many provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. Similarly, it is contrary to good business, and is a completely unfair competitive practice, which should be estopped and which is detrimental to all private capital now invested in terminal and warehousing properties.

It may be that your committee will not see its way clear to recommend to the Congress the enactment of this entire bill, but we wish to urge that this phase of this legislation should not be overlooked, and if no other part of this legislation should be considered by your committee, this part of this bill should be enacted into legislation as quickly as possible, in order to eradicate and place on a fair competitive plane the unbusinesslike, the unfair, and the controlling influence in many instances, of the State and municipally owned terminal and warehousing operations. The conditions which the merchandise warehousing industry finds are such that these proprietary competitive enterprises entirely upset, in a community where they are located, opportunity to carry on business with fair and reasonable rates of pay and hours of labor, with returns anywhere near the reasonable cost of the operation.

This is not something new, or a passing phase of temporary interest to our trade. For many years the development of State-owned and municipal enterprises has hampered, and has tended to destroy the building up of the warehousing trade. During the past few years, especially, because the private terminal and warehousing operations did not have recourse to tax funds to supply deficits, they have suffered severe strangulation because of low-price service and other unfair practices indulged in by municipally and State-owned enterprises. This cannot long endure without breaking down our rail transportation regulation, insofar as it applied to port traffic, and a large part of our commerce moves to and from our port cities.

BRIEF OF JAMES J. DELANEY, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS OF AMERICA, NEW YORK CITY

The organizations which I represent are in favor of this bill, for several reasons: First. No industry in this country, on account of the destructive cut-throut. competition within, is more in need of regulation. We believe it will be beneficial to the public, to the operators, and to the employees.

Second. We believe that it will be the means of developing a strong essential and economical system of transportation that will be a credit to you gentlemen who are undertaking it and to the country itself.

Third. We believe that it is extremely necessary now on account of the failure of the General Shipping Code which carried down with it the divisional and subdivisional codes, which would have brought about regulation and stabilization of the industry.

However, Mr. Chairman, I notice that no labor provisions are included in this bill. Surely, gentlemen, there cannot be fair competition wherein one industry has hours of labor prescribed by law for it to work its employees, and labor provisions whereby the said employees can obtain a reasonable wage, and the other, transportation industry, has no labor provisions and can work their employees any hours at any rate of pay they see fit to give them.

That cannot be fair competition to my way of thinking, although as I see it fair competition is what the President is trying to bring about for the benefit of all.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am presenting a proposed labor amendment which I hope you will give serious consideration which I believe it deserves, and hope you will recognize the need of making it part of this bill.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BE KNOWN AS LABOR AMENDMENT TO H. R. 5379, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CARRIERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES-NATIONAL IN SCOPE

Definition: The term "carrier" when used in this amendment includes any carrier by water engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.

General purposes: The purposes of this amendment are: (1) To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier therein; (2) to forbid any limitation upon freedom of association among employees or any denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of the right of employees to joint a labor organization; (3) to provide for the complete independence of carriers and of employees in the matter of self-organization to carry out the purposes of this amendment; (4) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; (5) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.

Hours of service limited: That it shall be unlawful for any water carrier, its officers or agents subject to this amendment to require or permit any vessel propelled by machinery to be operated without having in her service and on board sufficient complement of licensed officers to provide that no licensed officer shall be permitted or required to remain on duty more than 8 hours in any 24-hour period, except in case of emergency, when life or property is in danger. Nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent local inspectors from increasing the number of licensed officers on any vessel subject to the inspection laws of the United States, if in their judgment such vessel is not sufficiently manned for her safe navigation.

General duties-Labor disputes-Rights of representation: First. It shall be. the duty of all water carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any water carrier growing out of any dispute between the water carrier and the employees thereof.

Second. All disputes between a water carrier or carrier and its or their employees shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all expedition in conference between representatives designated and authorized so to confer, respectively, by the water carrier or carriers and by the employees thereof interested in the dispute.

Third. Representatives shall be designated by the respective parties without interference, influence, or coercion by either party over the designation of representatives by the other; and neither party shall in any way interfere with,.