Page images
PDF
EPUB

we cannot wait indefinitely for Canada to bring us a bill and say, “Now, here is what we will agree to. Can you put your bill down on all fours with ours?" Some of us have to move. We will not pursue that line

any

further. Counsel, did you want to ask some questions?

Mr. DREWRY. Captain Johnson, I believe when the chairman called the roll a little while ago, he called the name of Captain Bishop. Is he here?

Captain JOHNSON. He is unable to be here and if there is no objection, I would like his statement to be included in the minutes, as he was intending to, and I think he is called out of town. I have not been able to get hold of him since I have gotten into town.

Mr. DREWRY. Your group is part of the international organization?

Captain JOHNSON. That is correct, and I am international vice president.

Mr. DREWRY. Is the position of the international in accord with your statement ?

Captain JOHNSON. The international wants a bill. That was our understanding at our meeting. While his may vary a little, his statement won't be in as much detail as mine. That is probably the only difference we have.

Mr. DREWRY. Are you familiar with this statement ? Have you seen it? Captain JOHNSON. I haven't seen it; no, sir. Mr. Drewry. I have a copy of the statement of Captain John Bishop, secretary-treasurer of the International Organization of Masters, Mates, & Pilots, in regard to this bill. I will not read it in full, although it is quite short, unless, Mr. Chairman, you would like it to be read.

Mr. LENNON. Would you comment on its contents? Mr. DREWRY. Captain Bishop has these statements: After studying the provisions contained in H.R. 10593, and in consideration of the many facets connected thereto, especially wherein a second country is involved, we wish to compliment the people who drafted this proposed legislation.

We wish to be recorded as endorsing H.R. 10593 and recommend its passage with the reservation that if experience indicates the necessity for the require ment as provided on page 3, line 10, section 3(b), thereupon H.R. 10593 should be amended to provide, by Presidential proclamation, other waters not heretofore designated but included under the requirement provided in section 3(a), which in fact would require a registered pilot in the so-called open waters of the Great Lakes and on other waters not designated heretofore.

Captain JOHNSON. My statement conforms with that.
Mr. DREWRY. That is all I have.

Mr. LENNON. Without objection, then, the statement of Capt. John Bishop will be included in the hearing record.

(Prepared statement of Captain Bishop follows:)

STATEMENT OF CAPT. JOHN M. BISHOP, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE INTER

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS I am Capt. John M. Bishop, secretary-treasurer of the International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots. This statement is submitted in behalf of my organization, which is an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, with jurisdiction to represent all deck officers in the U.S. merchant marine.

On the basis of the experience of some 500 masters and mates, members of this organization, who are employed in shipping on the Great Lakes, I am pleased to reflect their strong endorsement for the initiation of a pilotage system to handle

the increased number of vessels coming into the United States and Canadian waters of the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway. This organization has been placed on record previously as endorsing legislation to require pilots aboard the vessels while in transit on the St. Lawrence Seaway and while sailing on the Great Lakes.

After studying the provisions contained in H.R. 10593, and in consideration of the many facets connected thereto, especially wherein a second country is involved, we wish to compliment the people who drafted this proposed legislation.

We wish to be recorded as endorsing H.R. 10593 and recommend its passage with the reservation that if experience indicates the necessity for the requirement as provided on page 3, line 10, section 3(b), thereupon H.R. 10593 should be amended to provide, by Presidential proclamation, other waters not heretofore designated but included under the requirement provided in section 3(a), which in fact would require a registered pilot in the so-called open waters of the Great Lakes and on other waters not designated heretofore.

I would like to express my appreciation to the members of this committee for the opoprtunity to be heard in behalf of this most important legislation.

Captain JOHNSON. May I state that I am not in favor of any more hearings or any more studies on this. Let's have a bill.

Mr. LENNON. I believe the gentleman here wanted to ask you a question.

Mr. Nıx. Captain Johnson, you recognize the necessity of the passage of this type of legislation ? Captain JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nix. However, you are unhappy with some of the proposed provisions ?

Captain JOHNSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Nıx. And you feel that there are certain inequities that should be corrected ?

Captain Johnson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nix. And really you feel that someone should have sat down, or some group of people, prior to proposing this legislation and ironed the thing ut and, as a result of what they concluded, then propose legislation ?

Captain JOHNSON. Sir, 2 years ago Senator Lausche proposed that, but there was no studying done on it and there was no comimssion appointed, and there has been no research on it since that time.

Mr. Nix. Thank you. Mr. LENNON. Thank you, Captain. Capt. Eugene O. Peo of the International Shipmasters Association of the Great Lakes.

Wowuld you come around hurriedly, please ?

Is your statement lengthy? Captain Peo, in the interest of time, and we are going to have to leave in a matter of minutes to get on the floor, do you want to offer your statement in its entirety for the record and hit the high spots on it? Would you prefer that?

STATEMENT OF CAPT. EUGENE O. PEO; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. L.

ANTHONY GILBERT, COCHAIRMEN OF THE NAVIGATION AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE OF THE GRAND LODGE INTERNA. TIONAL SHIPMASTERS ASSOCIATION OF THE GREAT LAKES

Captain Peo. Yes, it is a short statement. It wouldn't take long, Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. We were anxious, if we could, to finish a certain type of testimony here this morning. I do not know when we are going to meet again.

Captain Peo. I will try to do it the quickest I can.
Mr. LENNON. All right.
Give your name and state whom you represent, please.

Captain Peo. I am Capt. Eugene O. Peo and this is Capt. L. Anthony Gilbert. We are cochairmen of the Navigation and Legislation Committee of the Grand Lodge of the International Shipmasters Association of the Great Lakes.

I would like to interpolate at this time that we are the only ones authorized to use the International Shipmasters Association. It has been implied that their past grand presidents and so forth may, which is good identification, but they are not authorized to speak.

We, Captain Peo and Capt. L. Anthony Gilbert, both of the city of Ogdensburg, N.Y., appreciate this opportunity to present our association's opinions concerning pilot bill S. 3019.

The International Shipmasters Association of the Great Lakes is comprised of 15 lodges in the principal ports of the Great Lakes, with 781 active members, 679 American and 102 Canadian, all of whom hold masters' and pilots' license in their respective countries, as well as 300 associate members who are also active in the industry.

Our organization was founded in 1886 at Buffalo, N.Y., as a benevolent association. It has always strived to promote safety at sea by recommending higher standards of licensing on the Great Lakes, better aids to navigation, and modern and separate safety courses on all Great Lakes. We feel that the efforts of this association since its formation have contributed to the present high standard of safe navigation that we now enjoy on the Great Lakes.

Over the years, our excellent record of safe navigation speaks for itself when one considers the vast amount of tonnage moved on the Great Lakes.

In regard to the aforementioned bill, this association's shipmasters and pilots will be working closer to the phase connected with deepwater vessels trading on the Great Lakes than any other parties in the maritime Great Lakes industry. By virtue of this, we feel well qualified to express views and opinions concerned with safe navigation and pilotage in the Great Lakes area.

We are unanimously in agreement with the proposed Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 and believe, with a few amendments and modifications which we will point out, that the act will do a great deal to improve navigation on the lakes.

Section 2(a) of the bill reads as follows: Great Lakes means Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, their connecting and tributary waters, the St. Lawrence River as far east as St. Regis, and adjacent areas.

For true reciprocity in the navigated waters of the Great Lakes between the United States and Canada, we wholeheartedly recommend that the Great Lakes meaning be extended as far east as Montreal rather than to St. Regis. In this connection, we call your attention to the laws relating to the navigation of vessels.

An act to regulate navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters as amended, reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following rules for preventing collisions shall be followed in the navigation of all public and private vessels of the United States upon the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters

a

as far east as Montreal and in the navigation of all other vessels upon such lakes and waters while within the territorial waters of the United States (28 Stat. 645–650, as amended 49 Stat. 669, 62 Stat. 82; and Act of March 28, 1958, Public Law 85–350; 33 U.S.C. 241-295).

That is taken from the Great Lakes pilot rules.

To be consistent with that act, Great Lakes in the instant bill should mean the five lakes, their connecting and tributary waters, and the St. Lawrence River as far east as Montreal rather than as far east as St. Regis.

Furthermore, by virtue of the treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, the rights of navigation of U.S. pilots have been honored as far east as Montreal by the Canadian Government.

This association opposes section 2(e) of the proposed act which defines "other officer.

As we interpret this section, citizens of other countries outside of the United States and Canada can be certificated to navigate in open lake or unrestricted waters. This opposition arises mainly from our interest in safe navigation on the Great Lakes. In this connection, we respectfully submit that all waters of the Great Lakes should be considered restricted water.

Certainly, what could be considered more restricted and dangerous or any more close water navigation than the Straits of Mackinac, or such harbors as Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Loraine, and Toledo on Lake Erie; or Bay City and the Georgian Bay Harbors on Lake Huron. To say that Green Bay Passages, Sturgeon Bay Canal, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Milwaukee, Chicago, South Chicago, Indiana Harbor, Gary, and Muskegon Harbor on Lake Michigan are not close water navigation and restricted would be ridiculous to a veteran pilot.

The same is true of Marquette, Portage Canal, Ashland, Duluth, Superior, Port Arthur, and Fort William on Lake Superior.

We also would like to point out that there are numerous cross courses and converging courses, that demand complete local knowledge of the Great Lakes.

In addition, there are also separate up and down bound courses on the Great Lakes, which we Great Lake navigators are aware of, know the value of, and strictly adhere to. With today's modern fast deepwater ships, one can readily understand the dangerous situation that would arise in times of low visibility and inclement weather if these ships were not navigated by a person thoroughly familiar with local knowledge language of the Great Lakes, and its procedure in these problems of safe navigation.

We, as Great Lakes navigators, submit that the whole Great Lakes area is unique in its navigational problems, ship handling and terminology, and we feel that the lakes are wholly different from any other bodies of water in the world. For these reasons, Great Lakes vessels of United States and Canada must be under the direction of United States and Canadian licensed officers fully familiar with all problems of the water, and the rules pertaining to safe navigation as set up by their respective Government agencies.

We do not feel that bill S. 3019 provides for this same element of safety for the deep-water ships navigating the Great Lakes, by reason if its permissive certification of navigators or pilots who lack familiarity with navigation problems of these waters. For this reason, we cannot concur with section 2(e) of the proposed act.

In closing, we again state that bill s. 3019 has merit and is a step in the right direction for compulsory pilotage on the Great Lakes which the International Shipmasters have advocated for years. With the exceptions and amendments heretofore stated, we highly recommend passage of this bill by Congress.

Mr. LENNON. Captain, then you take the position in your exception to section 2(e) of the proposed bill that the bill would require all United States and Canadian vessels, including those of shallow draft or reasonably shallow draft, operated in these waters to be piloted by officers who are licensed by our Government or the Canadian Government, whereas the bill now would permit ocean-draft vessels to use these same waters without the same restrictions that is to say, you could not determine whether or not a man had the familiarity necessary to operate in the open waters with a deep-draft oceangoing vessel simply because he could speak the English language and could use the ship-to-shore radio and had a radar?

Captain Peo. I might answer that this way, Mr. Lennon: I have been an active master of a ship for 14 years and Captain Gilbert the same. I have spent 34 years of actual lake navigation, outside of a trip or so in the ocean, and I feel that we are well competent in that experience to express what we mean by restricted areas and the type of vessel that should have pilots abroad those ships.

As U.S. citizens and by the requirement of the Coast Guard, we have to have, myself as a master and a first-class pilot, an unlimited license, and my first mate has to have an unlimited license. The second and third mates have to have a second-class license to cover the tonnage of the ship they are serving on.

Mr. LENNON. You say there is discrimination to require you and the Canadian vessels to be so equipped with experienced masters and mates, whereas this bill would not so require a foreign oceangoing vessel traveling in the same waters?

Captain Peo. We are not terming it as discrimination.
Mr. LENNON. That is what you think it would amount to?
Captain Pro. No. In the interest of safety.

Mr. LENNON. Putting it purely on the basis of safety, it would amount to making fish out of one and fowl out of the other. What else can you call it?

Captain PEo. That is true.

Mr. LENNON. Do you subscribe to the theory that the Congress ought to spell out with some degree of clarity, and particularly certainly in the beginning, the area that should be included as restricted waters?

Captain Peo. Yes, I do. I absolutely think that the bill should be clear and understandable to all bodies involved in it.

Mr. LENNON. Under the bill now, the President, by designation and thereafter proclamation, designates the so-called restricted waters with regard to the applicability of this bill.

Captain Peo. Not to say that the President might not be qualified to designate, but who would advise the President where these restricted areas would be?

« PreviousContinue »