Page images

might be possible to eliminate that area as a compulsory pilotage district and commence compulsory pilotage much closer to the mouth of the Detroit River because those waters west of Pelee Passage are broad and open for a considerable distance. This is but one example of why we believe flexibility should be retained.

In conjunction with the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Governments of Canada and the United States have commenced work on a program to improve and deepen the connecting channels in the Great Lakes. Extensive dredging and other improvement work has been undertaken in places such as the St. Mary's River (by the United States) and in the Amherstburg Channel of the Detroit River and the Welland Canal (by Canada). This improvement program will change conditions in various areas and may have an impact upon pilotage requirements, which emphasizes the need for considerable flexibility in this legislation at this time.

Conditions within designated pilotage districts may point up the desirability of modifications to promote efficiency from the operational standpoint, such as minor variations in the designated waters to make it easier to embark and disembark pilots. Rigid areas designated in the legislation itself would prevent making such adjustments promptly when the need arises.

Our analysis of this entire question of designating specific waters convinces us that it would be most desirable to leave the proposed legislation in the form in which it was introduced by the State Department. All previous legislative proposals, such as H.R. 7515 and H.R. 57, contained no specific areas but left this matter to the executive branch of the Government to be accomplished by means of regulations. In these previous bills the Department of Commerce and the Department of State had no functions. Now that there are three departments having specific duties, we assume that the draftsmen thought it best to give the power of designation to the highest executive office to maintain balance between the three executive departments involved. As a practical matter, we all know the President will seek the advice and knowledge of the Coast Guard, Commerce, and State. Prior legislation did not contain any regulatory features and was based solely upon the attainment of marine safety objectives. The legislation now under consideration is much broader and we do not perceive how the additional problems engendered by the regulation and administration of the pilot service in coordination with Canada by the Commerce Department and the international relations aspects of dealings with Canada on this matter by the State Department could be expeditiously handled unless the bill is left in its present form.

Mr. HINSLEA. Of course, I have been before you previously. I am a practicing attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, specializing in admiralty law, and represent the Chicago Overseas Shipping Association; which we have described before as an association comprised of some 25 members representing foreign ships, and I believe there are at least 2 members of American shipping companies, but I am quite sure that the American Merchant Marine Institute, which they belong to, has been speaking for them.

I have always appeared before this committee questioning some of the weaknesses of the old bill.

One of the weaknesses that I thought was in the bill was that it only required a man with an unlimited pilot's license, which a young man 22 years old could obtain to qualify as a pilot. The insertion now of a requisite of an unlimited master's license has settled my question, because in the regulations of the Coast Guard a man must serve some period as a second-class pilot and then as a first-class pilot before he is eligible to take the examination for his master's license, and I feel with that training period when he gets his master's license he will be qualified.

I also was troubled about the pilots jumping from one area to another. I often wondered what would happen if I was a pilot up on the St. Marys River and I got tired of it in the fall of the year when it is cold and icy and I could jump down to the Detroit River pilotage


area. That has been taken care of by the allowance of associations or pools which will be controlled by the Secretary of Commerce, and I can see that a pilot will probably be registered for the St. Marys River and he could not jump down to the Detroit River area without seeking permission or new registration from the Secretary of Com

As to the fee system, I think that that is the most logical and practical way of doing it, and I might say that no one that I represent has ever thought that fees should be set without everyone interested being given a chance to be heard.

It is my humble opinion as a lawyer, and I have so stated in my statement, that the Administrative Procedure Act covers the whole field and I don't think it is necessary to make any statement in this act specifically providing for public hearings.

I understand that during the hearings the question did come up and it was pointed out by some of the legal talent in the Government offices that there might be a time that, for instance, when a pilot retired and maybe 2 years from now he wanted to come back. Well, if you designated the Administrative Procedure Act must apply, then it might be possible this pilot might have to come to Washington and spend money to be reinstated, whereas it might not be necessary, for instance, for just reinstatement from retirement.

That about hits the high spot of my statement.

I have listened very attentively to some of the witnesses before me. Gentlemen, I have been around the Great Lakes a long time and do know something about these associations.

As a lawyer, and a great many of you men on the committee are lawyers, our training has always been that when we appear in court we have to be factual with the court and tell the true facts of the case as we know them. This committee is here to get the facts and in some instances I don't think the facts have been given to you.

Captain Golden has stated in his statement that his Licensed Tugmen & Pilots Association is the oldest organization and that other pilots associations are newcomers. I know personally, members of the committee, that the Licensed Tugmen up to 2 or 3 years ago were known as the Licensed Tugmen's Protective Association, and 2 years ago, in order to get within this pilot work, they added the word "pilots.” So, instead of them being oldtimers as pilots, they are the newcomers.

He has made a suggestion that the Coast Guard should give an unlimited master's license to any pilot. I don't think that the Coast Guard would do such a thing and certainly I wouldn't be for it.

There isn't a State pilotage association in the United States that I know of that doesn't require, before a man can qualify as a local pilot, that he have had an ocean master's license and has sailed over the high seas for at least 5 years.

This suggestion has been that if I just pilot in the Detroit River I should be given an unlimited master's license, and I have no such qualifications prior to obtaining the certificate.

If we are going out for safety, nothing like that should be granted.

A great part of his statement contains things that he should go to the Coast Guard about. They have no place in a discussion before you on this bill.

For instance, the handling of a landing boom. He should go to the Coast Guard on that. If I don't like and don't think that a landing boom is safe, I will go to the Coast Guard. I won't come in and try to inject it in this bill.

There are other things through the statement that I think that the proper place for his objections would have been to have gone, or still go, to the Coast Guard.

As to the statement of Captain Peo, of the International Shipmasters, I think Cleveland Lodge No. 4, which is the largest lodge of the whole organization, has sent in a complete approval of this bill.

He talks, and other people have talked in the hearings, and probably they are still going to talk, about the collisions with foreign vessels and the great dangers that are encountered in this traffic.

As Mr. Brisset has stated to you, there was some 2,200 round voyages by American vessels through the seaway and 1,094 oceangoing vessels. On our American side it would be my guess that there are probably between 275 and 300 lake vessels trading on the Great Lakes as bulk freighters. Ordinarily in a full season they will make from 35 to 40 round trips apiece. Last year, because of the steel strike, I think statistics might show that they only averaged maybe 20 round trips; but if you multiply 300 ships by 20 trips, that is 6,000 trips through the lakes, and then add the foreign ships.

I would say that Canada probably has a sum of a hundred ships trading on the Great Lakes, and they will make 30 round trips a year, and they were not bothered last year by the steel strike, so that is another 6,000 trips.

Therefore, I would say, roughly, last year we might have had some 14,000 or 15,000 round trips of ships of various types.

I have secured from sources that I think are quite reliable the collisions that occurred in American waters on the Great Lakes from the American waters near St. Regis to Duluth and to Chicago. Gentlemen, the collisions totaled 18 for the whole season of navigation on the Great Lakes last year. I think the last collision was on the 10th day of December 1959 and the first collision was on the 25th of April 1959. I have broken those down.

There were four collisions on the open waters. Three of those collisions had Canadian pilots aboard. They were not on watch. They were below subject to call. One of those vessels did not have a pilot aboard and it is probably the most serious collision we had, and Admiral Spencer has referred to that one alone.

Another collision that occurred on Lake Huron was between a foreign ship and a Government ship. The foreign ship was on the proper upbound safety course. She had a pilot aboard and the Government ship, instead of being on the downbound course 10 miles out from the upbound course, was coming down on the upbound course, and there was a collision, and I think the damages there ran $50,000 or $60,000.

The other collision in open waters was between two American ships navigated by two experienced American masters.

The other one was at the westerly end of Lake Erie, with a pilot aboard, between a foreign ship and an American ship.

Fourteen of these eighteen collisions occurred in rivers or harbors. Six of these fourteen were between American ships. Six of these in

volved American ships and foreign ships. I think there were a couple in Buffalo; there were a couple in Toledo; there was one at Muskegon; there was one at South Chicago; there was one collision between a Canadian and foreign vessel at Port Weller, and there was another collision down on the seaway between two foreign ships.

Most of the 18 collisions that have been accounted for were minor and two were major so far as damage to the vessels were concerned.

I heard Mr. Nix ask several of the witnesses as to whether or not any outsiders were invited to make a study of the proposed bill before it was introduced and offer suggestions. If the committee please, I was asked to look over the proposed bill. I raised various questions about the bill and they told me why various parts were in the bill and I was satisfied. I happen to know that the bill was submitted to Mr. Spencer of the Lake Carriers Association, and I am quite sure it was submitted to other outside people, Mr. Nix, before the bill was introduced.

Of course, this pilot question has been going on for several years and it is the same music with a few changes of the words. I think all of us that are interested know what it is all about.

I do feel that it was done well. I think the way it was done was excellent. If the suggestion of Congress had been followed out and the Government agencies had invited everybody in for a townhouse meeting, I don't think we would have had a bill before Congress today.

It is my understanding that the American agencies had meetings with Canada during the spring and summer. They were kept quiet. I didn't know what was going on except I did hear from time to time of the meetings, but when these gentlemen got the bill together, I am quite sure that they presented it to everybody that was interested for their observations and suggestions on parts that they didn't care for.

Mr. Dorn, I think during the investigation, asked what the Department of Commerce could do that the Coast Guard couldn't do with reference to the certificates. This thought occurred to me, what the Coast Guard would not do that the Secretary of Commerce would do. If I was a registered pilot for the Soo River area, and, as I said before, I got tired of it, and I jumped down to the Detroit area, the Secretary of Commerce would probably call me before him and say that I have no right to navigate in that area because I am not certified for it, and he controls the number of people in that pool and if I was insistent on working in that area I think he could take my pilot's registration away for the Soo River or he could suspend it. The Coast Guard wouldn't be interested in that at all.

When the Coast Guard gives a license, they watch the man to see that he commits no negligence or malfeasance, and they suspend his license for that reason. They have no interest in him jumping from one ship to the other or from one area to the other as long as his license covers the place where he wants to sail. He might have a license for the entire Great Lakes and this year ship out with the car ferries and trade exclusively on Lake Michigan, and next year he might get a ship with one of the shipping companies in Cleveland and sail the entire Great Lakes, and the Coast Guard is not interested in that as long as he keeps within the framework of the license they have issued. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions, the «committee would like to ask, I would be glad to try to answer them.

Mr. GARMATZ. I notice in the next to last paragraph you say:

In conclusion, our association desires to endorse this bill which has been so ably put together by the various Government agencies, and respectfully ask that .this committee recommend its pro passage and enactment into law.

Is that correct?
Mr. HINSLEA. That is a correct statement; yes, sir.
Mr. GARMATZ. Any questions?
Mr. CLARK. No questions.
Mr. LENNON. No questions.
Mr. JOHNSON. No questions.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Ray!
Mr. Ray. No questions.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Nix?
Mr. Nix. No questions.
Mr. GARMATZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinslea.
(The following was furnished for insertion:)


Ogdensburg, N.Y., March 13, 1960. Mr. W. B. WINFIELD, Chief Clerk, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Représent:

atives of the United States, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. WINFIELD: It is, of course, impossible for hearings before congressional committees to continue on endlessly, and to allow for cross-examina tion. Occasionally when testimony by a witness challenges that of one who has preceded him, the committee is faced with a dilemma as to whom to believe. It would appear that this might be true in our case and therefore offer this in. formation for the record.

We learn through a press release of March 12, that testimony presented by our business representative, Capt. W. E. Golden has been challenged by Mr. Lee Hinslea, counsel for the Chicago-Overseas Shipping Corp. Mr. Hinslea is known to us as an attorney representing the prosperous Great Lakes-oversea shipping interests who pay him well for his lengthy, high-sounding, and oftenconfusing testimony rendered before congressional committees. These groups represented by Mr. Hinslea seek to receive their income from shipping practices which are neither condoned elsewhere, nor fair to the other U.S. established ports; namely by cutting corners in maritime safety, including the turning loose in U.S. waters of ships of any nation without a U.S. pilot aboard.

If a war were to occur, these Midwest customers represented through Mr. Hinslea would be left without any ships, until such aid as the U.S. Government could divert from other routes would be available. Thus, Mr. Hinslea, while declaring to testify in the public interest, represents the invisible termites who are gnawing away at the economic shipping structure the seaway was supposed to create.

We also know Mr. Hinslea through past counsel he has rendered to very rabid antiseaway clients. And, finally, we know him as a lawyer who is listed as an active member (No. 2969) of the International Shipmasters Association, which makes him fitting for his role as a “sea lawyer."

We are not “sea lawyers,” but practical, experienced U.S. pilots, upon whose future the passage of a fair and equitable pilotage bill will decree whether a lifetime of work will stand or fall. We must therefore stick to facts; facts which have been altered in testimony by Mr. Hinslea. He challenges Captain Golden's statement that the organization to which many of the U.S. seaway pilots belong is the oldest in its field, claiming that we are “newcomers."

This statement as presented to your committee as read by Captain Golden read as follows, “The LTPPA is the oldest union of deck officers on the Great Lakes." It should be noted that while the words “deck officers” are used, pilot members


« PreviousContinue »