seize our boats and determine by executive action what the nature of the punishment should be fore the violations which have occurred. And that, even as it was an executive, President Jefferson, who I believe established the 3-mile territorial limit, could the executive, in this day and age, by example and by case history, determine what the penalty would be if it chose to do so?

Mr. KIBRE. I rather doubt that. Even though I am not a lawyer, I have had some background in the field of international fishery law. During the latter part of the 1940's, I was rather intimately associated with a number of people on the west coast who were dealing with this subject. It is my understanding that the territorial sea is an extension. of the sovereignty of the National Government. In that sense, the National Government can determine by executive action the extent of the sovereignty to be exercised.

With respect to violations of that sovereignty, I think we would want to have legislative enactments. I don't think we would want to permit our executive to fix the penalties; in other words, to become judge, jury, and prosecutor. That may be true of Cuba, I don't think we want it here.

Mr. KEITH. Is it not true of most of the countries of Latin America? Mr. KIBRE. Not entirely, so far as I know. There are legislative enactments with respect to the penalties. It is true that in some instances the executive by decree or by unilateral action has determined the type of punishment to be visited on a foreign fishing vessel. This is the kind of thing we have been objecting to strenuously.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Kibre, you differentiate between territorial waters and territorial seas, as I get the impression from your testimony. In the hope that some day this country may extend its sovereignty beyond the traditional historical 3-mile limit, is there any thinking on your part that perhaps the language where the bill constantly refers to territorial waters could probably refer to territorial seas and waters of the United States?

Mr. KIBRE. Actually, I was using the terms interchangeably. However, it is possible, for example, to assert control for conservation purposes of fishery resources beyond the extent of the so-called territorial sea. For example, Canada is extending its territorial sea only with reference to fish out to 12 miles. However, I noticed in the paper last week, or 2 weeks ago, that the present Prime Minister is proposing to the Canadian Parliament that it enact legislation extending the territorial sea out to 12 miles.

Mr. LENNON. You are the only witness who has referred to the Truman proclamation of 1945. During some reading the other night, I stumbled on the same thing. I am glad you brought that up. You say that it would perhaps incite some of the South American countries to take retaliatory measures. For the record, would you state the significant import and effect of the so-called Truman proclamation of 1945 as it affected our waters to any limit that it was designed to go so far as our fishery resources are concerned?

Mr. KIBRE. The significance of the Truman proclamation, as I recall it, lay in the fact that this was the first time our Government asserted a claim over fishery resources extending beyond the limit. of the 3-mile territorial sea. The proclamation, in effect, said that

the United States could properly exercise, for purposes of conservation, control over fishery zones with respect to a coastal fishery resource which extended beyond the limits of the territorial sea.

As I recall, that was the substance of the Truman proclamation. But it also went on to say that the implementation of this policy should take into account those other coastal States which might have an interest in a fishery which extended beyond our shores.

Mr. LENNON. What has been the practical implementation of the Truman proclamation of 1945 so far as we have attempted to protect our fishery resources beyond the so-called historical 3-mile limit? Mr. KIBRE. The implementation was confined to a series of regional pacts. For example, the North Pacific Fisheries Treaty which involved Japan, Cañada, and the United States with respect to certain resources which were of mutual interest to these three countries.

A second regional pact was the Tropical Tuna Convention, which again was entered into with those countries which had a mutual stake in the tuna resources.

There was never any implementation of that portion of the Truman proclamation which provides that we might set up by unilateral action fishery zones, reserving to our own nationals a particular resource, which extended beyond the limits of the 3-mile territorial sea. Mr. LENNON. That was never done?

Mr. KIBRE. That was never done.

Mr. LENNON. It is time now to seriously consider on the part of the executive branch of the Government either withdrawal of that proclamation or an implementation of it?

Mr. KIBRE. It is our thinking that the further protection of our fishery resources could best be accomplished through regional pacts. We are very fearful about setting up fishery zones which would be reserved to our own nationals for the very reason that I was indicating earlier in my testimony; that this, in turn, encourages Latin American and other countries to set up similar exclusive zones. Now, I do feel, however, that it would be appropriate for the United States to extend, for purposes of conservation, control over coastal resources out to 12 miles.

Mr. LENNON. Would that have to be done by an additional executive proclamation or with the implementation of the Truman proclamation?

Mr. KIBRE. I think it could be done as an implementation of the Truman proclamation or as a separate Executive order. As a matter of fact, in the last Geneva conference, we were prepared to agree on a compromise of 6 miles with reference to fish. Of course, this would have been the subject of an Executive order, I assume, on the part of the administration.

Mr. LENNON. If that had taken place?

Mr. KIBRE. If that treaty had actually been brought about.

Mr. LENNON. Will you be kind enough to furnish to the counsel of the committee at your earliest convenience any language that you might think would be helpful to the counsel and to the members of the committee with respect to the reciprocal fishing in our respective territorial waters?

You mentioned those countries who historically enjoyed these privileges. That would have the same effect that apparently both Great Britain and Canada have with respect to extending their territorial

waters out to 12 miles, it would prohibit two countries, would it not?

Mr. KIBRE. Exactly.

Mr. LENNON. Is that not exactly what is was designed to do?

Mr. KIBRE. Primarily.

Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much for your informative and help

ful testimony.

Mr. KIBRE. Thank you.

Mr. LENNON. This will conclude the hearings on the Senate bill 1988, and its companion bills in the House.

I understand that there are a number of telegrams and other communications addressed to the committee on this subject, and, without objection, we request that they be inserted in the record at this point. With that, the committee stands adjourned.

(The material mentioned follows:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES ACKERT, PRESIDENT, ATLANTIC FISHERMEN'S UNION OF BOSTON, GLOUCESTER & NEW YORK

My name is James Ackert. I am president of the Atlantic Fishermen's Union of Boston, Gloucester & New York. I have been engaged in the fishing industry for a period of 20-odd years, serving as mate and master for the past 16 years. In speaking here today in favor of S. 1988, I will devote myself strictly to the Boston area as Gloucester and New Bedford are represented.

Because of the buildup of the Russian fishing fleet off our shores, it is apparent that there must be restrictions on the Russian trawlers if the New England fishing industry is to survive. I suggest setting the Continental Shelf as our fishing limit for foreign nations. With this limit, we can safeguard

banks historically fished by our vessels. We could then enter into a "fishing treaty" with Canada.

From January 1958 to July 1958, the "Boston fishing fleet" produced 81.7 million pounds of fish. For the same period this year (1963) we produced 66.7 million pounds. The lack of production of fish would be a serious problem in case of a national emergency arising from war on contamination of the atmosphere.

Because the Russians have refused to abide by established conservation practices, we must assume that by the practice of using small mesh twine, they will deplete our fishing grounds. The trawler Massachusetts, on August 17, 1963, hauled up a Russian trawl net while they were engaged in groundfish operation. Because of the size of the net, there is no question of the ownership (country) of said trawls. Laced inside of the cod end belly of the trawl net was a small mesh liner.

Because of the bulk of Russian trawl net it was impossible to bring the whole net back to port, therefore they removed the liner by cutting it away from the cod end belly and let the rest of the net go. The length of the sweep of this net was between 350 and 400 feet.

The Canadian and United States fishing boats do not use nets of this size and the only other nation fishing on Georges are the Russians. I have an affidavit signed by the crew of the Massachusetts to verify this statement. Also, a piece of the twine was brought in by her crew.

In the area of the 2000 line (loran bearing) where the Massachusetts picked up the Russian trawl net, there is no whiting or red fish. There was no justification for using small mesh in this area. Herring never go to the bottom around this area to spawn, because the bottom is too hard. In order to lose this net the Russian trawler was engaged in bottom trawling. If he was engaged in midwater trawling he would not have lost his trawl.

The Charlotte G, Capt. Henry Duwart, of Provincetown, while dragging 4 miles east-northeast from Pollock Rip Lightship, picked up a Russian trawl with 2.000 pounds of undersized schrod haddock meshed in the net. There was no whiting or herring caught in this net and if the Russians were engaged in catching either of these fish they would also be meshed in the net.

The use of this illegal-size mesh is being investigated by Mr. Briggs, Commissioner of LCNAF. A finding of this issue will come in the future. The lack of production on Georges Bank and other banks off our New England shores are

of great concern to the people engaged in the New England fishing industry. This condition is already creating hardship to the New England fishing industry, and unless our banks are protected, the outlook for the future does not appear promising.

There have been several incidents of harassment of our boats by the Russian fleet. I am sure these will be mentioned in Mr. Lewis' statement.

The start of the Russian fleet (after World War II) was with the assistance of the U.S. Government (under the Marshall plan).

It would seem that we consider fishing industries important to other nations of the world. Therefore, it must be apparent that we must protect our own fishing industry so that we can help to feed the people of our country in case of

any emergency.

In regards to the clause allowing foreign vessels to fish within territorial waters and to land its catch in a U.S. port, we, the members of the Atlantic Fishermen's Union, strongly protest this addition to Senate bill 1988. This leaves a door open that has never been open before and for the good of the fishing industry, should never be allowed to be opened.

Injury to the New England fishing industry was reported by the Tariff Commission in 1956 due to amount of imports of fish. The situation has not changed any since that date and allowing foreign vessels to land fish in U.S. ports will cause greater hardships on the New England fishing industry.

This would be the final blow to a hard-pressed industry.

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 20, 1964.

Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,

Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BONNER: On behalf of the Japan Fishery Society, a trade association composed of representatives of the fishermen, the fish producers and processors of Japan, I appreciate the privilege afforded us today in your acceptance for inclusion in the record our written statement and views on S. 1988, H.R. 8296, H.R. 9957, and H.R. 7954.

I would say at the beginning that although Japan does not have a general statute or practice of prohibiting foreign nationals from fishing in territorial waters, we believe it to be settled in international law that any coastal state may exclude foreign nationals from its territorial waters and penalize intrusions therein. Severe sanctions such as appear in this legislation together with a capability of enforcing them will in all probability discourage any intentional violation of territorial waters.

We do not feel, however, that it is wise or even necessary at this time to extend the Federal power and these severe sanctions to the vast expanses of the international waters over the Continental Shelf. Briefly stated, our reasons are that we do not find either in the Convention on the Continental Shelf, in the customary international law or in the existing statutes of the United States any agreement at all as to what species of fish or marine animal is contemplated by the terms Continental Shelf fisheries resources appertaining to the United States or fishery resources of the Continental Shelf claimed by the United States. The confusion is particularly noticeable with respect to definitions under article 2, section 4, of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, which, although not yet in effect, is probably the most binding rule on the subject amongst all nations. This point was brought to the attention of members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce of the Senate by the representatives of the Department of State and the Department of the Interior who were asked to assist the committee in its hearings held in September of last year.

Strict enforcement by the Federal Government of the Federal law over the vast territories now defined as Continental Shelf could create a great deal of misunderstanding and would, we submit, not be justified in the terms of benefit to the fishing industry of the United States. I should like to state two specific examples. While the limits of the Continental Shelf in the North Atlantic extend several hundred miles off the U.S. coast, it is difficult to see how the United States under any definition of "Continental Shelf fishery resource" could prohibit other nationals from competing with U.S. nationals for fishery

resources of high seas. In the case of the king crab fisheries in international waters off Alaska, it is a fact that Japanese fishermen have exploited and developed the king crab fishery exclusively in international waters north of the Aleutians and both the Japanese and the United States fishermen are even now cooperating in efforts under the North Pacific Fisheries Convention looking toward the maintenance of that stock of fish in the North Pacific.

I am sure you understand the very serious nature of this particular problem, not only for the Japanese fishermen but for the people of Japan whose very existence is so dependent upon high seas fisheries. I suggest the interests of fishermen of both countries could best be served by continuation of cooperative efforts with respect to the maintenance of the king crab fishery and that you defer your consideration of Continental Shelf fisheries until the problems for the American fishermen are better defined and the applicable law in somewhat of a less confused state.

Again, I appreciate your inclusion of our full statement in the record of the hearings.

Respectfully submitted.

JAPAN FISHERY SOCIETY,
H. WILLIAM TANAKA, Counsel.

STATEMENT OF MR. H. WILLIAM TANAKA, ON BEHALF OF THE JAPAN FISHERY

SOCIETY

INTRODUCTION

This statement is submitted on behalf of the Japan Fishery Society, a trade association of Tokyo, Japan. The society is composed of representatives of both the fishermen and the fish processors of Japan. The statement is submitted because of the very serious problem the enforcement of the legislation in its present form will present to the king crab fishermen of Japan and with the hope that continued cooperative efforts between American and Japanese fishermen in this and other areas may strengthen the feeling of good will between the peoples of the United States and the peoples of Japan-free world allies.

THE BASIC POSITION OF JAPAN FISHERY SOCIETY

While Japan has no specific law prohibiting foreign nationals from fishing in its territorial waters, it is generally conceded among nations that the territorial waters of a nation are reserved for the exclusive exploitation and development by the nationals of that nation. Thus, reasonable sanctions against unauthorized use of territorial waters appear unquestionably justified in the interest of public order in the community of nations. Therefore, the Japan Fishery Society has no objections to that portion of the legislation under consideration which provides sanctions for the taking of fishery resources within the territorial waters of the United States as long as reasonable precautions are taken to establish that such violations are deliberate and that upon apprehension, foreign nationals are granted those substantive and procedural rights which conform to requirements of international law on the treatment of aliens. In support of this position the society offers its good offices to avoid any misunderstanding among Japanese fishermen and the people of Japan as to the purpose and intent of that portion of the legislation applicable to territorial waters of the United States.

With respect to that portion of the legislation providing severe criminal sanctions against foreign nationals "taking of any Continental Shelf fishery resource which appertains to the United States" or "taking fishery resource of the Continental Shelf claimed by the United States," the Japan Fishery Society suggests that neither the Convention on the Continental Shelf, international law, or the legislative history of S. 1988 passed in the Senate contains anything like a consensus as to the species of fish or marine animal covered by the terms applicable to those resources, the taking of which by nationals of other states would constitute a crime under the statutes. Further, it is our belief that the extension of Federal power by Federal law to such a vast expanse as covered by present definitions of the Continental Shelf beyond the territorial waters insofar as it relates to fishery resources would not return a commensurate benefit to the fishing interests of the United States and, on balance, could lead to unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of other nations as to the purpose and intent of the United States in enacting this bill.