Page images



Mr. Bishop. 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 S. 3019, 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 S. 3019 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 S. 3019 should be amended to provide, by Presidential proclama tion, 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 opportunity to be heard in behalf of this most important legislation. Senator Scott. Thank you very much, Captain Bishop.

Mr. BOURBON. Captain, do I understand that your organization favors having the registered pilot at all times that the ship is in the lakes?

Mr. Bishop. I would like to make it very clear at this time, and according to the testimony given in the brief, that we endorse this legislation. However, if through experience, after the proposed legislation is in effect, experience warrants the necessity of amending this legislation to provide that registered pilots be aboard in the open waters, then we recommend at that time amendments to this legislation.

If I may elaborate just one second further:

We wish to be on record that if this legislation which we are endorsing is not sufficient to eliminate or prevent severe casualties in the Great Lakes or open waters area, then we endorse further amendments to this legislation.

Mr. BOURBON. Do you speak for Captain Johnson's group, too?
Mr. BISHOP. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BOURBON. He has submitted a statement. He wasn't scheduled as a witness. He hadn't asked to be. I wondered if he goes along a hundred percent with your statement ?

Mr. BISHOP. I note with interest, skimming over Captain Johnson's brief, he elaborates further on some of the particular mechanics of this bill. But the statement which I make on behalf of the international reflects the general attitude of the organization, sir.

Mr. BOURBON. We may or may not have time to get to Captain Johnson later.

Mr. BISHOP. I understand, sir.
Senator Scort. Thank you very much, Captain Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.

Senator Scott. The statement of Captain Rolla R. Johnson will be introduced in the record at this time, subject to the possibility that he may later want to testify. Captain Johnson is president of the Great Lakes District and international vice president of the Masters, Mates, and Pilots, testifying in regard to S. 3019.



Mr. Johnson. My name is Capt. Rolla R. Johnson, president of the Great Lakes District, Masters, Mates, and Pilots.

The function of our Great Lakes district is to represent masters, mates, and pilots licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard sailing on the Great Lakes and the sea way.

We have worked for many years toward the passage of a pilotage bill that would protect every American and Canadian sailing these waters. While we cannot term this as the proper pilotage bill, we are giving it our reluctant support, and feel the following recommendations for amendments to this bill should be given serious consideration.

In the Shipping Act of Canada, it clearly states if a pilot is used in Canadian waters he must be a Canadian. S. 3019 says the pilotage shall be reciprocal. Will we have the assurance of the Canadian Government that they will stop their discrimination against the American pilots and the American shipowners, this should be plainly defined and agreed to, as far east as Father's Point or Father's Point west.

As it is a well-known fact the Canadian Government acting on the recommendation of the Shipping Federation of Canada who are agents for foreign shipowners, plans to issue licenses for these waters to foreigners, regardless of their competency. A salt water license does not qualify a man to pilot the Great Lakes and seaway. It should be stated in S. 3019 that only a citizen of the United States or Canada can be licensed by the Coast Guard or certificated by the appropriate agency of Canada.

No provision has been made for an apprenticeship for a master to qualify as a pilot. It is a requirement of our organization for any master before he can become a pilot must make the necessary apprentice trips to prove his competency in handling the vessels.

It is most important to the safety of navigation that this bill provide for apprenticeships. During the 1959 season, there was more than $10 million in damage on the Great Lakes due to collisions, strandings, and sinkings, caused by the inability of foreign masters to pilot these waters. This has increased the insurance rates 55 to 60 percent.

We are in full accord with the provision that rates and charges and other terms for pilotage service be fair and equitable but feel these should be equivalent to our American standards. The highest pilotage bill from our organization in 1959 was $900, billed to the Isbrandtsen Steamship Co.,

Inc. This was from Cape Vincent to Chicago and return to Cape Vincent, a trip of 18 days' duration. A bill such as this certainly cannot be considered exorbitant.

The supervision of the pilotage should remain with the Coast Guard as they are already doing an excellent job. To change this to the Commerce Department at a time when everyone is preaching economy in the Government would not be proper. Also, the regulations of the pilots' fees should be under the direction of the Labor Department.

Inasmuch as Federal pilotage does not completely control the coasts, the Great Lakes States cannot have their rights for State pilotage denied.

I wish to thank you for your consideration in allowing our Great Lakes District, Masters, Mates, and Pilots, an opportunity to be heard on this most important legislation. (The following was received for the record :) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS,

Cleveland, Ohio, February 25, 1960. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Enclosed please find a letter from Capt. Norman: S. Johnston, pilots' representative and business manager of the Canadian Great Lakes & Port Weller-Sarnia Pilots.

This letter was sent to me while I was in Washington for the hearing on S. 3019 as Captain Johnston hoped to have this included in my statement on S. 3019. Inasmuch as the letter was not delivered in time, I would appreciate it very much if you will incorporate this letter with my statement in the minutes of the hearing. With kindest regards, I remain, Very truly yours,

Capt. ROLLA R. JOHNSON, President, Great Lakes District Local 47.

PORT DALHOUSIE, ONTARIO, February 22, 1960. Capt. ROLLA R. JOHNSON, President, Great Lakes District 1.0.M.M.P., Washington, D.C.

DEAR CAPTAIN: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of the new pilotage bill (S. 3019) to be cited as the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960.

It seems to be a very good bill excepting for one reason--section 2(E) other officer and its definition. This paragraph is also referred to in several places in the bill.

It would appear that this is very much similar to the B license that Canada was thinking of issuing to the foreign and british shipmasters and other officers for open-lake pilotage. In my opinion and many others, for efficiency, safety, and economy this is a very wrong thing to do.

On behalf of the Canadian Great Lakes & Port Weller-Sarnia Pilots, I would therefore kindly ask of you to strongly protest to the proper Washington authorities any issuing of any license whatsoever by Canada or the United States for open-lake pilotage to a foreign or British shipmaster or other officers. We must make certain that only a Canadian or American citizen who is a qualified pilot is on call as a pilot aboard ship on a 24-hour basis for open-lake pilotage.

All one has to do is to look at the tabulated losses of shipping accidents on the Great Lakes and seaway in 1959 to see how necessary this is for efficiency.. safety, and economy.

The pilotage pools would have to be international in scope. This, then iş a simple problem and can be easily worked out between our two countries with our two pilotage groups cooperating to the fullest extent. Yours fraternally,

Pilots' Representative and Business Manager,

Canadian Great Lakes & Port Weller-Sarnia Pilots, Senator SCOTT. The next witness is Marvin Fast, executive director, Great Lakes Commission.



Mr. FAST. Mr. Chairman, my name is Marvin Fast. I am execu-tive director of the Great Lakes Commission, which is a joint advisory agency of State governments on Great Lakes programs and issues.

We have submitted, in advance, two documents and request at this time that they be included in the record, and with your permission I would like to make a few additional comments.

Senator SCOTT. These documents referred to will be included in the record at this point.

Mr. Fast. The bill before the committee appears to meet substantially all of the recommendations which the Commission has outlined in these two documents, and we are therefore pleased to add our support to the bill before the committee. In arriving at this decision we: base our action on four major considerations.

First, that the bill establishes a Federal rather than a State system of pilotage on the Great Lakes. As a joint agency of State governments we concur in that approach.

Secondly, it provides for close cooperation and coordination with Canada in establishing this pilotage system. While it thus does not completely conform with the recommendation which we had made for an international joint commission, we now concur that this approach, which is embodied in this bill, represents a more practical and workable solution.

Third, the bill provides the governmental regulation of pilotage which we have been recommending. It thus adopts and incorporates the feature which so uniformly and consistently is a characteristic of pilotage where pilotage is a matter of State responsibility.

Finally, the bill provides what seems to be a reasonable and acceptable compromise on the issue of pilotage on the open waters of the Great Lakes.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the bill would provide a workable and realistic solution to the problem of Great Lakes pilotage which would both provide greater marine safety and promote the economic success of the St. Lawrence Seaway. We therefore urge approval of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I also have a copy of an editorial that appeared in the Milwaukee Journal on February 19, and comments on this proposed legislation. I request that it be made a part of the record.

Senator Scotr. It will be so received, Mr. Fast.

Mr. BOURBON. The two matters that you want inserted are your letter of May 29, 1959, and the statement authorized June 3, 1958.

Mr. Fast. That is correct, sir.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

[From the Milwaukee Journal, Feb. 19, 1960)

A GOOD PILOTAGE BILL, AT LAST The long fight for reasonable pilotage requirements in the Great Lakes, to head off a "featherbunking" rule that would have saddled prohibitive costs on foreign ships, now nears successful conclusion.

A proper bill has been worked out in the proper way-jointly by the United States and Canada through diplomatic channels—and hearing on it will open before the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee in Washington, Monday. It will be made wholly reciprocal through parallel legislation by Canada.

This came about only after Congress had twice been alarmingly tempted by the Coast Guard bait-a claim that safety required licensed pilots throughout the lakes, even during the 80 percent of the time when vessels are docked or sailing open waters. Since United States and Canadian captains are so licensed anyway, this was aimed at foreign vessels, and interests hostile to a flourishing seaway were quick to support it. Canada properly resented it, and objected. So, of course, did seaway port interests like Milwaukee.

The new bill provides that the President will designate Great Lakes waters presumably limited to certain locks, canals, and restricted channels—in which a registered United States or Canadian pilot will be required on board. It authorizes international arrangements to regulate the pilotage service, including rates.

In undesignated waters ships will need only to have one of their own officers qualified for lakes navigation and so certified by either country. In practice Canada, being the point of entry into the waterway, will do most of this certifying. And most foreign ships will have captains or mates with the necessary command of English, sailing experience and knowledge of local sailing rules. Many of them, in fact, could qualify as pilots if allowed.

This must certainly satisfy any reasonable concern for navigational safety. Since it is an administration measure, the Coast Guard has to acquiesce in it. As an agreed bill with Canada, it recognizes the necessity for international collaboration in regulating an international waterway. Its prompt passage will be a happy end to what had threatened to be a sticky business.


Ann Arbor, Mich., May 29, 1959. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Great Lakes Commission appreciates the opportunity afforded it by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to present its views on the problem of pilotage on the Great Lakes at hearings on H.R. 57 on April 22. To further clarify the Commission's position we respectfully request that this letter also be included in the record.

The Commission's opposition to H.R. 57 is based on two objections. First, the requirement that pilots be aboard at all times while a vessel is on the Great Lakes, even in open waters, is unnecessarily severe and would result in unfair economic hardship. Second, nowhere in the bill is there authority for the supervision and control which so significantly and uniformly are features in pilotage regulations where these are a matter of State responsibility and which are required in the public interest.

With reference to the first objection, it is recognized that the U.S. Coast Guard is among the highest of the authorities on matters of marine safety and that its views therefore concerning the need for pilots on the open waters of the Great Lakes deserve very careful consideration. We point out, however, that other authorities on marine safety-including the Department of Transport of the Government of Canada and shipping lines with many years of experience on the Great Lakes—disagree with the position taken by the Coast Guard. Indeed, in the view of these latter authorities, H.R. 57 in its present form inadequately recognizes the needs of marine safety on the open waters of the Great Lakes. Its inadequacy in this respect, as other witnesses pointed out, lies in its failure to examine the competency of the officers of the ship,

« PreviousContinue »