Page images

of this organization were piloting steam vessels in the Chicago River and other restricted harbor waters of the Great Lakes as early as 1900.

As to being “newcomers” as charged by Mr. Hinslea, here are the names and dates of commencing to pilot, of some of the pilots presently serving vessels on the seaway:


date of

original Pilot:

service Capt. Thomas Le Gault

1908 Capt. George Woods--

1910 Capt. Philip Jelly

1915 Capt. Thomas Cree_

1920 Capt. Edward Fleming

1925 Undoubtedly some of the men above started at an earlier date than shown. From 1930 there are too many names to list herein.

Mr. Hinslea twisted Captain Golden's statement, “I respectfully request that simultaneously with reciprocal pilot legislation, it be made possible for a person acting solely as a pilot on the Great Lakes to obtain a master's unlimited license.”

The requirements for an unlimited master's license on the Great Lakes are clearly defined as known to the committee, in the Federal Statutes, title 46, CFR 10.05–13. Nowhere under subsection (a) (1) through (5) is it possible for a pilot acting solely as such to qualify for examination for master of any Great Lakes vessel.

The suggestion for legislation for landing booms was also criticized by Mr. Hins'pa. Seawav nractire of not providing personnel to take ships lines at lock approaches has forced ocean ships to use the Great Lakes steamship-type landing boom to lower men onto lock approach walls. This practice has been severely criticized by ocean shippers and insurers. The design of ocean ships; the manner in which their bows quickly fall off in gusty winds, make this practice of trying to land a tieup crew highly dangerous and time consuming. Great Lakes vessels can hold themselves up to a lock wall without damaging the hull of the vessel. Ocean vessels cannot.

Reluctantly it must be pointed out that two seamen were lost from such landing boom attempts during the 1959 season. Only one of these accidents was reported to have occurred in a U.S. seaway lock. Therefore the U.S. Coast Guard is powerless to enact safety measures which effect the facilities of another Government department without congressional prompting.

ning as an authority on casualties, has, as is frequently the custom, quoted irrelevant statistics. He claims there have "been 15,000 round trips on tur

uamus ulli.g the 1959 season.” This is quite true. But it is believed that the basic issue before the congressional committee is a bill to regulate pilotage. The 15,000 trips referred to by Mr. Hinslea were made by U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes ships for which the government of each country long ago regulated the pilotage; namely, that each navigational watch officer of the vessel is required to be a licensed pilot.

According to figures released by the joint seaway authorities, there were 3,943 round trips through the seaway in 1959, and it is these vessels only thąt would be involved in any pilotage legislation now before the Congress of the United States.

As Mr. Hinslea claims there were only 18 collisions, his choice of the word “collision" cuts down the casualty list considerably, but does not truly reflect the necessity for safe navigation. We offer below eight major accidents, all of which occurred in the restricted local area of the St. Lawrence River.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]









Carl Julius






Po edota


Not included are three vessels which went astray and were forced to unload before being towed free.

It should be called to the committee's attention that none of our so-called newcomers were involved in any of these casualties.

We hope that these remarks will be noted in the record in answer to Mr. Hinslea's charges. Respectfully,

JOAN S. BLANK 3d. Mr. GARMATZ. Is Mr. Kevin Levins here, executive vice president of the Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc.!



Mr. LEVINS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have a short statement I would like to read in the record, after which I would like to make a few comments concerning the amendments proposed by Mr. Shapiro, if I may.

I am Kevin T. Levins, of Chicago, Ill., executive vice president and general manager of Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc., and assistant to the president of Chicago Calumet Stevedoring Co., Inc., which firms are engaged in the business of unloading, loading, warehousing, and distribution of import and export cargoes carried by ocean vessels in the Great Lakes-oversea trades.

In addition, I am authorized to present the views of all other major stevedoring companies handling oversea cargoes in the port of Chicago; namely, North Pier Terminal Co., International Steamship Terminals, Inc., and the Seaway Stevedoring Co., Inc.

Our business is directly affected by all matters which exert an influence upon the amount of Great Lakes-oversea trade, at least for the port of Chicago. Consequently, we have been greatly interested in pilotage requirements for ocean shipping on the Great Lakes, and I have followed previous legislation in the field.

I have given previous testimony before the House and Senate committees on bills H.R. 57 and S. 2096, and S. 3019, respectively.

We believe that adequate pilotage requirements for the Great Lakes are necessary for the safety of navigation. However, we have naturally felt that the imposition of any unreasonable burdens upon ocean vessels trading into the Great Lakes must be avoided if the anticipated benefits to our economy from the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway are to become a reality. Therefore, we have reviewed the proposed legislation.

In our opinion, H.R. 10593 overcomes many of the objections which were made to prior legislation. Stringent pilotage requirements would be imposed for the safety of navigation in restricted waters. Adequate provisions are made to require a qualified officer for navigation of the Great Lakes on board vessels transiting the open waters of the lakes.

The Secretary of Commerce would be empowered to register U.S. pilots and regulate pilotage in coordination with the appropriate agency of Canada to provide for efficient pilotage services. The Coast Guard would continue to license U.S. pilots for the Great Lakes as in the past.

Of course, we understand that the necessary regulations and the training of the pilots cannot be accomplished immediately and a reasonable time will be necessary to deal with such matters. Neyertheless, we believe that the proposed legislation provides the foundation for adequately dealing with the Great Lakes pilotage problem in all its facets while, at the same time, providing sufficient flexibility to deal with pilotage problems on a continuing basis.

In the past, there has been little opportunity for American citizens to participate in pilotage work because ocean vessels usually made their arrangements for the employment of pilots in Canadian waters. This was due primarily to the necessity for ocean vessels to pass through wholly Canadian waters before they arrived in the Great Lakes.

Under the proposed legislation, there will be an opportunity for equitable participation in pilotage work by American and Canadian citizens, which is another desirable feature of this proposed legislation.

During past hearings, we recommended the establishment of a joint international pilot commission by the United States and Canada to deal with this problem.

In our opinion, the regulatory system which would be established by this legislation would adequately accomplish the same purpose. As a matter of fact, a joint committee might not be able to serve as efficiently because of the need for frequent consultation between the members and regular governmental departments of the two countries. The powers delegated to the Secretary of Commerce in this new bill, together with the authority to coordinate the pilotage system with the appropriate agency of Canada, is probably a better approach to the problem than a joint commission from a practical standpoint.

We wholly support H.R. 10593 and respectfully urge its prompt passage.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Clark?
Mr. CLARK. No questions.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Ray!
Mr. Ray. No questions.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Lennon?
Mr. LENNON. No questions.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Oliver ?
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Nix?
Mr. Nix. No questions.
Mr. GARMATZ, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. LEVINS. May I comment on the recommendations submitted by Mr. Shapiro?

The counsel has just one question, if you do not mind.

Mr. DREWRY. Mr. Levins, as you have indicated, you have testified on this subject on at least three previous occasions both here and in the Senate. Therefore, you have been close to it.

In the course of the past—what would it be? About 3 years?
Mr. LEVINS. About 21/2 to 3 years.

Mr. DREWRY. Of your knowledge there has been a great deal of study given to this subject by not only terminal operators, as you are, stevedores, but sailing masters, pilots, organizations such as the Coast Guard, and so on. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVINS. Very much so, Mr. Drewry.

To my own knowledge, I believe that the matter has been under study by the Coast Guard for approximately 5 years and I know that

5 my associates and myself in the marine activities in Chicago as well as at Cleveland and Detroit-I have talked to these various operators--have had this under constant study for about 272 to 3 years.

I have had various dealings on this bill, and certainly a bill that has had four hearings, this being the fourth, I would say has had considerable study not only in industry, but in Government.

Mr. DREWRY. And this bill in your opinion is the bringing together of all of the various ideas, both conflicting and otherwise, to a point where it is generally acceptable to the people who will have to feel its influence?

Mr. LEVINS. Very much.

If I may step out of the management area, in which I make my living, I believe that this bill constitutes an equitable arrangement between industry and labor. It follows a pattern that has been established over the years for dealing with rates, conditions, and discipline, and it commits industry to pay those rates that are equitable for the labor service given.

Mr. DREWRY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GARMATZ. Do you have any other statement to make?

Mr. LEVINS. I would like to comment on the amendment recommended by Mr. Alvin Shapiro of the American Merchant Marine Institute with regard to naming the restricted waters in which pilotage would be compulsory and delegating power to the Coast Guard to designate other areas as restricted waters after public hearings, under section 3(a) should be rejected and the original wording retained, for the following reasons:

1. In order to obtain uniformity of pilotage areas and coordinate the pilotage requirements with Canada, the areas should only be designated after consultation with Canadian authorities. This would probably be handled by the State Department and, thereafter, the restricted areas should be promulgated by both nations on an identical basis.

2. The Commerce Department will have the responsibility of supervising and administering the pilotage system, establishing rates, and promulgating regulations for pilotage, therefore the pilotage areas should be designated and adjusted from time to time with due regard to operating problems. The Commerce Department should therefore have an opportunity to be heard on such designations.

3. The Coast Guard should be given the opportunity to present its views from the marine safety standpoint.

4. In view of the many interests involved and the fact that our foreign relations with Canada are affected, the designation of the restricted waters by Presidential proclamation would be the most satisfactory way to handle the problem, and this is what H.R. 10593 now provides for.

With respect to the amendment proposed by Mr. Shapiro on the designation of the foreign vessels to which the pilotage requirements should apply, by the President, we believe that any language changes which would clarify the matter would be acceptable to us.

By the same token, having complete faith in the integrity of our country and our President, I for one would trust that the President would not discriminate against his own merchant marine.

« PreviousContinue »