TREATIES OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE, AND NAVIGATION While no treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation exists between Canada and the United States, the spirit of freedom of intercourse between the nations that has existed, and the minimum of tariff restrictions, clearly establishes a relationship of amity justifying at least tacit conformance with the standard provisions of such treaties. The spirit of such treaties, of course, is one designed to further friendly and active trade between the nations, to their mutual advantage. Such treaties presently are in force between the United States and some 30 countries of the world. "Vessels of either party shall have liberty, on equal terms with vessels of the other party and on equal terms with vessels of any third country, to come with their cargoes to all ports, places, and waters of such other party open to navigation. * * *” The known desire then, of Canadian shipping interests and of the Dominion of Canada, to provide equal treatment to its own vessels and those of other flags is added as a basis for this petition. Only by the Governor in Council exercising his authority under section 316 of the act can the discriminatory effect of section 338 (e) (v) be overcome. That portion of that section reads: "338. The following ships shall, subject to the next following section, be exempt from the payment of pilotage dues: "(e) steamships registered in any part of His Majesty's dominions "(v) employed in voyages between any port in the Province of British Columbia, and the port of San Francisco, or any port of the United States of America on the Pacific, north of San Francisco, and between any port in the Province of British Columbia and any port in Alaska." Thus, while the act exempts British dominion ships in the Alaska-British Columbia-United States Pacific coast (San Francisco, northward) from pilotage, it does not afford the same exemption to vessels of the United States in the same trade. It is conceded that vessels of the Coastwise Line trade south of San Francisco to ports in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor area. However, the basis for exemptions from pilotage is the presumed familiarity of masters with the waters, and any other basis is discriminatory and violative of the spirit of the friendship, commerce, and navigation pacts. This is particularly so in the case of Coastwise Line, whose masters are fully familiar with those waters, and use no pilots in the American waters. The petitioner is aware that there has been a denial of the fact that any discrimination is involved here for the reason that Canadian-flag vessels trading coastwise south of Puget Sound must pay pilotage dues in those United States ports south of Puget Sound. This argument does not appear to adequately deny a claim of discrimination. The Canadian Government excuses its own ships (and any Dominion ships) from pilotage if they trade Alaska, British Columbia, Puget Sound, Columbia River, San Francisco. In doing so, therefore, they discriminate in favor of their own ships and against ships foreign to the Canadian flag, because no ship of any foreign flag trading even in the limited trade between Puget Sound and Vancouver can be excused from paying pilotage dues in Vancouver. Thus, while the Canadian Government excuses its own ships in the over 2,000-mile range from Alaska to San Francisco, it will not excuse a single foreign-flag ship trading in the narrow range of about 125 miles between Vancouver and Seattle. To state it another way, Canadian coastwise ships are exempted in some United States ports, but not a single United States coastwise vessel is exempted in any Canadian port. A second argument denying that discrimination exists is that, whereas under bylaw 3, no master of any flag is compelled to turn his vessel over to a pilot in a Canadian port, nevertheless, United States pilotage authorities will not permit certain vessels to enter certain United States ports unless they are navigated by a pilot. This argument does not appear to be valid as a denial of discrimination because, in the first place, it is irrelevant and does not bear upon the question at hand. Secondly, such an argument does not appear to be valid because Canadianflag vessels offer coastwise service only as far south as Puget Sound. To the extent that the Canadian-flag ship does offer coastwise service between Canada and the United States, they are exempted from the payment of pilotage fees in the United States. This argument might have validity if a Canadian-flag line desired to develop a trade farther south to the Columbia River, or to California ports. In that case, it might properly contend that the Oregon and California pilotage laws should be amended to excuse them-this on the fundamental ground that where the master is consistently in and undoubtedly knows the waters, he should not be required to turn his vessel over to a pilot or to pay a pilotage fee. EMPLOYMENT OF COASTWISE LINE VESSELS In recent discussions with individuals in Vancouver presumed to have been acquainted with the background of the changed bylaw No. 3, it was indicated by such persons that part of the reason for certain interests in British Columbia feeling that vessels of the Coastwise Line should employ pilots was the nature and size of the vessels employed (Liberties) and their lack of confidence that the vessels were not in fact employed offshore, thus destroying the assumption of familiarity of the masters with the waters involved. It was reported also by such individuals that logs of one of the vessels were examined by Canadian authorities in Victoria. In view of the lesser tonnage of a number of vessels operating pilotageexempt between Puget Sound and British Columbia waters, it is understandable that doubts in this respect could arise, particularly in view of the fact that voyage reports are not rendered by the Coastwise Line to any authority of the Canadian Government. To assure the pilots' committee and the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping that these vessels have been employed strictly in the coastwise trade in question, there is attached hereto a certified statement of the employment of the coastal trading vessels of the Coastwise Line since May 2, 1949. This petition is respectfully submitted with the assurances that this office is at the disposal of the pilots' committee and the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping for the development of any further information which the addressees of this petition may require. Senator POTTER. Are there any questions? Senator MAGNUSON. I would like to ask Mr. Skinner one question, for the record. On page 6 your recommendation is to make it possible to purchase C1 MAV1 or R1 MAV1 type vessels. Has the company applied for purchase of that type of ship yet? Mr. SKINNER. We haven't, Mr. Senator. We tried to get legislation through Congress, I believe, in 1950, for that purpose and failed. We would still like to go ahead. Senator MAGNUSON. If we could get that enabling legislation, then it is my understanding that the company would be interested because of the type of ship involved which would fit the peculiar Alaskan trade, that if it was under reasonable terms you would be vitally interested in trying to get those ships? Mr. SKINNER. That is correct. Senator MAGNUSON. They are available. Mr. SKINNER. There are 130 in the layup fleet. Senator MAGNUSON. One hundred thirty of them, and we have just never been able to break them loose. Senator POTTER. Thank you. We have two insertions for the record concerning the Alaska trade. One is from Glenn Carrington & Co., which will be made a part of the record. The other is from Grocery Supply, Inc., which will also be made a part of the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:) Senator CHARLES E. POTTER, GLENN CARRINGTON & Co., Room 261, United States Court Building, Seventh and Mission Street, San Francisco, Calif. DEAR SIR: In connection with the congressional investigation of the shipping situation to Alaska and Pacific coast ports, I would like to give a few statements for the record as I will not be able to personally appear before your committee. I have been actively engaged in merchandising in Alaska since 1915, and at present we have a branch warehouse and office at Fairbanks, Alaska; also a warehouse stock at Nome, Alaska, and a sales office at Anchorage, and do business in all parts of the Territory of Alaska. Our principal business is mining and construction machinery, trucks, and building materials. At the present time, in the rail belt of the interior of Alaska, I would estimate that 90 percent of the business is due directly or indirectly to the defense program, and with the high wages and high cost of doing business, it has made it nearly impossible for the gold miners to operate at a profit. I believe it is highly important that everything possible be done to assure efficient, continuous shipping to Alaska in the future, as in the past, where we have had approximately 70 days per year of strikes with the exception of the war years, it has caused untold hardships. More efficient harbor facilities, to speed up shipments, should be considered, such as improvements to the docks at Seward, also at Whittier and Anchorage. During the construction days of the roalroad, shipments were made direct to Anchorage, unloaded on barges and towed ashore at high tide, and possibly great savings could be worked out in the cost of freight for Anchorage if port facilities were created at Anchorage so that ships could come in there direct, at least during the open season. As the Government has spent millions of dollars in creating the port of Whittier, which is a water-level route to Anchorage, I would suggest that at least a part of the commercial freight be routed through Whittier and this would greatly relieve the congestion at Seward. The statements supplied by the two major shipping companies to Alaska indicate that the profit they are making does not justify the service they are giving, especially on passengers, and if more of the Government freight and passengers could be routed over the commercial lines it would give them the additional revenue needed to give more frequent sailings. Any economies made in the shipping would reflect on the cost of the defense projects, resulting in a saving to the taxpayers. It is regrettable that Seattle, with one of the finest natural harbors in the world, does not have more intercoastal and offshore shipping, and every effort should be made to keep our merchant marine active. However, at the present time, our shipments from the east coast, California, and even the gulf ports, are mostly coming by rail. I believe it in the interest of national defense to have a strong merchant marine and hope that management and labor can improve this condition so that water shipments will be greatly increased in all of our coastal ports. I believe it would be to the best interest of both management and labor to enter into an agreement whereby shipping to Alaska will continue uninterrupted during any controversies, as Alaska is nearly a hundred percent dependent on water transportation. During some of these shipping strikes it was necessary to truck from Seattle to Fairbanks and Anchorage a distance of approximately 3,000 miles, and the facilities of the airlines were taxed to capacity, with the people of Alaska paying for this extra cost even though they had nothing to do with the controversies. Alaska must develop industries to take the place of the defense spending when it levels off and this can only be done if the investors know that there will be efficient uninterrupted boat service. Yours very truly, Hon. CHARLES E. POTTER, GLENN CARRINGTON & Co., GROCERY SUPPLY, INC., Anchorage, Alaska, October 16, 1953. Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, United States Senate, United States Court Building, San Francisco, Calif. DEAR SENATOR POTTER: I had sincerely hoped to have been present in San Francisco to appear personally before your committee to express my views on the importance of water-transportation services to Alaska, as well as to offer a number of suggestions as to what should be done to improve existing services. Business pressures occurring during this particular time of the year, however, have prevented my leaving the Territory. Therefore, it would be most appreciated if you would accept this letter-statement for consideration and official introduction into the record. Water-transporation lines linking Alaska with the United States are of vital importance to the Territory's future economic development, its defense, and, of course, the welfare of its citizens. One glance at a map of North America and that importance becomes dramatically obvious, much more so than any number of words can picture. Obvious, too, is the essentiality that every effort be expended by appropriate branches of Government, as well as private operators to stimulate further development of the shipping industry and continued improvement in services. Owing to the seasonal factors peculiar to Alaska's geographic position and economy, a greater number of vessels are needed to meet the Territory's shipping requirements during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Frequently, when demands for services are at their peak, operators lack a sufficient number of vessels to accommodate all traffic efficiently and with the greatest measure of speed. For that reason, operators should be permitted to charter on short notice vessels from the United States Maritime Commission at reasonable rates for limited periods of time. The Military Sea Transportation Service should be limited in the scope of its operation. At the present time this service is depriving private carriers of needed revenues, both in the movements of north- and south-bound cargoes. Evidence at hand indicates that private operators could move this cargo not only as efficiently, but also at less cost, resulting in substantial savings to the American taxpayer. Frequent maritime tieups, owing to labor disputes, have had a crippling effect on the Territory's economy. Legislative provision should be made requiring a 60 to 90-day cooling-off period before strikes or walkouts occur. Common anniversary dates of various maritime labor contracts also would be of help, but this, of course, could not be accomplished by Government direction. Facilities to permit efficient and fast transfer of cargo from ship to trucks on Government-owned docks should be installed at an early date. Such facilities are not now available at the Government-owned dock at Seward, Alaska, to cite one example. Aboard ship, cool-room and/or cold-storage facilities should be enlarged, especially to permit the hanging of meat, insuring the arrival of a better, more salable product. My qualifications for submitting the preceding recommendations are as follows: Coowner of a firm doing in excess of $5 million volume per year. KEITH M. LESH. Senator POTTER. I wish to thank you for your courtesy. We will be in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5:05 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a. m., Thursday, October 22, 1953.) MERCHANT MARINE STUDIES THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON MARITIME SUBSIDIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, in room 261, United States Courthouse, 7th and Mission Streets, at 10 a. m., Senator Charles E. Potter presiding. Present: Senators Potter, Butler, Magnuson, and Congressmen Allen and Shelley. Senator POTTER. The subcommittee will come to order. We have been requested by our friends of the press that people who plan on submitting statements or will be testifying today, if you have your prepared statements with you, if you would submit the statements to Mr. Dewey back here, he can distribute them to the press as soon as possible. They have certain deadlines that they have to meet, and many of them are covering several beats. It would be a courtesy to them if they could receive the statements as soon as possible. So, if you have statements with you, and you plan on presenting them today, if you will turn them over to Mr. Dewey now, he will distribute them to the press. We have our good friend Congressman George Miller from across the bay. He has asked to be heard for a few minutes this morning. George, we are glad to have you here. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. MILLER. Welcome to California, Senator. We are very happy to see you and Senator Butler out here. Of course, Senator Magnuson is part of the western family. Senator POTTER. He has been indoctrinated already. Mr. MILLER. Yes. I want to thank you for the privilege of testifying this morning. I was out of the country until a week ago yesterday, when I got back to California. I was in Europe with the subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, or I would have formally asked for this time. I want to address myself to two things. First, notice has come out of Washington that the Maritime Academy at Alameda is to be discontinued, and apparently put into mothballs. This is not a war baby. It was established before the war to serve the merchant marine on the Pacific coast, and during the war was used as a cadet training school and is now used to give refresher courses to people in the industry. |