members, for example, or become affiliated with the Seafarer's International Union to have cooperation back and forth between the groups. Then legal questions were raised as to marketing associations, whether the crew members could lawfully belong and there has always been this doubt, as to whether or not marketing associations had to be limited strictly to boatowners and captains or whether the crew members could likewise be in there.

Senator BARTLETT. No determinations of that yet?

Mr. VANCE. No, Judge Laughlin in Hawaii indicated that it was unlawful for this situation to obtain, that is, for the crew members and captains to belong to the same group. We have cleared away that in this bill because this was the tradition in fishing, which goes back to Italy, that they did negotiate together back in the 1500's and 1600's, back to old Roman law, where you will find this was true, and this bill would eliminate that. It would definitely provide, you see, that under this old traditional union framework, that they can bargain and they will have the traditional strength of the unions.

Secondly, by permitting unions to bargain, we are making it clear that all of the segments of that union are in there togther. It is my personal opinion, Senator, if this bill is enacted, many of these local marketing associations will change themselves into local unions and affiliate with unions and thus obtain additional strength.

Another thing that we have done in this bill is permitted the packers to join so that we can have, under the Labor Act, multiemployer bargaining. This will put both the union and the packer in a better position to stabilize overall and in a particular fishery or particular area, competitive area, you see, and they will be immensely stronger

overall.

True, some of the traditional union weapons might not be as fully effective as they would in other fields.

Senator BARTLETT. Would you be inclined to say then to the person who might claim that this is a wonderful mechanism for increasing the membership of a union or the membership of unions, that although that might be true, at the same time it would be beneficial to the fishermen as a group because even the union would have only the same legal basis for negotiating as the association, although the union does possess in a general way more muscle than the association can possibly have.

Mr. VANCE. Absolutely, that is correct.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you anticipate, if a bill like this would pass and we talk about price stabilization, that there would be set a season's price or would it be a boat by boat price or catch by catch? Do you anticipate there would be a season's price, say? Let us take tuna or salmon.

Mr. VANCE. I am not very familiar with tuna, so I better stay away from that.

The CHAIRMAN. Take salmon.

Mr. VANCE. I would anticipate a season's price.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you would probably say, if you were allowed to say it, for this season, here is the price that we think we should have and this will be stable.

Mr. VANCE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Regardless of size of catch or time of season or anything else.

Mr. VANCE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. But you don't anticipate it will extend over a season, do you?

Mr. VANCE. No, this was the tradition during the years in which the Alaska salmon industry operated under the auspices of the War Labor Board and so forth. This was the traditional thing, a year-to-year proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. So that you would have to have some flexibility both in the interests of the canners and the fishermen, too, due to different conditions and circumstances in every season.

Mr. VANCE. Very different.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be fair in one season may not be particularly fair in another season?

Mr. VANCE. Generally speaking, those contracts were negotiated with many of the fringe items such as supplies of the boat, the manning of the boat and of later years, health welfare, this sort of thing would continue from year to year with annual reopenings on the price. I don't think I have ever heard of a fish price agreement, even in the early days. A great many contracts are, like I have said, many conditions are stable for a period of 3, 4 or 5 years and then with annual reopenings for certain particular items of wages and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask one further question. This doesn't prohibit the canner at all from having his own boats, does it? Mr. VANCE. No, it does not.

The CHAIRMAN. And if he doesn't like the price, that is probably what he is going to do?

Mr. VANCE. That is probably what he is going to do and then we will have to try to organize the crews.

The CHAIRMAN. So this is sort of a check upon an unfair wage, supposing the union asks an unfair price?

Mr. VANCE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Or did the wrong thing. I think it would create more equitable dealings both ways.

Mr. VANCE. That is right. If he thought that one particular union or association was being unreasonable or arbitrary, either go out and get his own boats to operate or he can go find another association or union to bargain with to supply his fish.

The CHAIRMAN. I am through.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Vance.

Mr. VANCE. Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator BARTLETT. The committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

FISHERMEN'S MARKETING ACT

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT

MARINE AND FISHERIES.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in the Yugoslav-American Hall, San Pedro, Calif.

Present: Senator E. L. Bartlett (presiding).

Senator BARTLETT. The hearing will be in order.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, is now in session.

The purpose of the hearing this morning is to hear witnesses on the bill, S. 1135. This legislation was introduced this year by Senator Magnuson of Washington, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, and is cosponsored by me. This legislation is similar to a bill that was introduced during the last Congress, which had as its purpose, also, authorization for fishermen to bargain collectively for the prices for their catch. The bill, it should be added, although similar, is surely not identical. The bill introduced this year has been changed to some extent and authorizes buyers of fish to receive the same exemption from the antitrust laws as do organizations of fishermen under the proposed bill.

Hearings were held in Washington, D.C., earlier this month, on May 8, to be exact, at which time a number of individuals interested in this legislation were given an opportunity to testify. However, a special request was made by the fishing interests in California to have the Senate Committee on Commerce hold hearings here, so those concerned with this problem in this area would have an opportunity to express themselves on this proposed legislation.

Senator Magnuson has asked that I conduct hearings on the bill tomorrow in San Diego, as well as the session here today in San Pedro. I expect that further hearings will be held later, and at least one will be in Washington, D.C. We have yet to hear from Government witnesses; most importantly those from the Federal Trade Commission and from the Department of Justice; also, I would hope, from the Department of the Interior. It is possible, although not certain, that other hearings will be held elsewhere away from Washington.

I think counsel for the committee has at this time a statement to read from Senator Engle.

Mr. LEVIN. Senator Engle's statement is as follows:

I sincerely regret being unable to attend the hearings on S. 1135 in San Pedro and San Diego, on May 24 and 25. Unfortunately, these hearings were scheduled

after I had made certain binding commitments necessitating my being in Washington, D.C. I do intend to closely study the record of the hearings, and I am certain that my colleague, Senator Bartlett, will elicit all of the essential information from those appearing as witnesses.

I am well aware of the problems of the American fishing industry, and particularly those of California. Therefore, it is always most regrettable when segments of the industry are split on any issue. I do hope that the differences expressed on the merits of S. 1135 can be reconciled, so that the fishing industry as a whole can move forward united to meet the many problems which we face today. Foreign competition continues to decimate every segment of the industry, and internal differences inhibit the unified front which the industry must have in order to survive.

Once again, I am sorry I cannot be with you, but am hopeful that I can be present at such future hearings as may be held on this measure.

Sincerely,

CLAIR ENGLE, U.S. Senator. Senator BARTLETT. I should add that yesterday in San Francisco the Commerce Committee had a most constructive meeting in respect to the expansion of Pacific trade. Senator Engle was the chairman. Very many interesting facts were divulged, and it became part of the testimony that will be incorporated in the printed record on this subject.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BARTLETT. On the record.

The first witness this morning is Mr. John Royal of Local 33, ILWU.

Mr. Royal, at your convenience.

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROYAL, ILWU, LOCAL 33, SAN PEDRO, CALIF.

Senator BARTLETT. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. ROYAL. No. I am just going to speak without a prepared statement. I may submit something for the record later in written form, Senator.

Senator Bartlett and members of the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, my name is John J. Royal. I am the secretary-treasurer of the Fishermen Allied Workers Union, Local 33 of San Pedro and San Diego, Calif. We are affiliated with the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union. The position I personally hold, I have held for the past 6 years, having formerly been a commercial fisherman myself.

The members of the organization which I represent are principally and primarily purse seine fishermen belonging to this organization, which dates back to 1933. I believe that we are the oldest tuna purse seine union on the coast, if not in the entire United States. We were formerly affiliated with the International Fishermen's and Allied Workers Union of America, and since 1950 have been affiliated with the Longshoremen's Union.

I know that, Senator, you and your committee have since October of last year been conducting a series of hearings of this type along the entire west coast as well as in Washington, D.C., on the predecessor bill to Senate bill 1135, which was Senate bill 3093.

Senator BARTLETT. We have been struggling with it for a long while; yes.