Corp., as far as I know, has had no change in status; they have not been in court, and they are still operating, and no objection has been raised. Now, in light of those facts, and as I say, as I personally understand them, subject to any corrections, we this is our position (reading): The Alaska Steamship Co. does not object to competition by small boats or any other type of vessel. The Alaska Steamship Co. feels that any carrier transporting cargo for hire should be required to comply with existing statutes. Any other situation would render such statutes meaningless and it can only be presumed that such statutes have been enacted by the Congress for the protection of the general public. If it can be established that existing statutes are unnecessarily burdensome, then it is the feeling of the Alaska Steamship Co. that the statutes themselves should be amended in order to afford to the general public only that protection which may be required. Alaska Steamship Co. does not believe the public interest is best served by exempting only certain small craft operated by any certain company, association, or organization, from such statutes. Mr. CLARK. As I have heard the testimony as it was developed today, it would seem to me that if this new cooperative is operating entirely within the laws, that no further extension would be necessary. That is the extent of our statements. Senator BARTLETT. Colonel Clark, I need a bit of education here. When you say that it is operating within the law, in what manner do you mean? Mr. CLARK. As a private carrier, or someone not a common carrier or a carrier for hire. Senator BARTLETT. Do you mean to say that they can operate in this fashion without complying with Coast Guard regulations? Mr. CLARK. Oh, yes, there are hundreds of boats up here, operating all of the time. Fishing boats, the halibut boats that come up, at the start of their season, and go down at the end of their season, they carry their on a private basis, or a contract basis; there has always been that business in the Alaska trade, for many, many years. Senator BARTLETT. It is your conclusion that this mere shift in organizational identity form, makes all the difference in the world as far as the operation of these charter ships is concerned? Mr. CLARK. No, my conclusion is that when you haul for hire, when you go out and solicit freight for hire, and haul for hire, as a common carrier, then you become subject to all of the regulations that govern all of us who are common carriers Senator BARTLETT. And carriers Mr. CLARK. And if you are operating as a private or contract carrier, then you are not subject to those regulations. Senator BARTLETT. Your assumption Mr. CLARK. We don't object to that kind of competition. Senator BARTLETT. Your assumption is that the new corporation is a common carrier status? Mr. CLARK. No, I beg your pardon. As I understood them in their testimony today, that they were not common carriers, but if they are not, then I don't see why they are here seeking an exemption. Senator BARTLETT. What share, approximately, do you know, Colonel Clark, of Alaska Steam's business is in southeastern Alaska, in the southeastern trade? Mr. CLARK. I would, at a guess, say about 20 percent, maximum; it would not be any higher than that. Senator BARTLETT. Just for purposes of discussion, let's say that' your conclusion as to the need for further exemption legislation is erroneous. How do you believe, Colonel Clark, an arrangement could be made that would satisfy the quite obvious needs of these southeastern Alaska ports? Without continuation of these exemption provisions? The whole crux Mr. CLARK. That is a difficult question to answer. of our problem up here is a question of volume. Earlier in the hearings, somebody asked, or you asked about for how much minimum tonnage we would stop at a port, and I think that the answer was given something like, by Senator Engstrom, five carloads; which I understand is a fairly accurate answer, because of high port charges, in Prince Rupert. But we go into ports-this week, we put a ship into Haines for 60 tons-to unload 60 tons. We lose lots of money on an operation like that. Senator BARTLETT. This is part of a monthly service to the ports north of here? Mr. CLARK. Up until now, it has been a weekly service, but it changes now with the winter season to a monthly service. Senator BARTLETT. We had a witness appear before us yesterday, in Ketchikan, a member of a firm engaged in the fish business that has a dock about a mile, I believe he said, from the center of the community, in shallow water, too shallow for Alaska Steam vessels to come alongside the dock. He said that if this charter service is not continued, that this company, with an investment of over $400,000, and an annual payroll of over $60,000, will necessarily have to cease operations. This is the sort of thing that troubles my committee, and troubles the House committee, when it made, just a short time ago, an even more intensive inquiry in Alaska on this very proposition. We went then to practically every community, and heard this story reiterated, and reiterated. Perhaps it isn't more important that the fellow with a half million dollar investment or $400,000 investment is vitally affected than it is in relation to the smaller man in business, but added up, it is clearly, or so it seems to me, a necessity that some supplementary service be provided; and, for the life of me, I can't comprehend how this will be otherwise done. And I know that the committee would be pleased to receive recommendations from Alaska Steam on this subject, because it is of vital consequence to the economy of this entire geographical section of Alaska; and I am wondering if you, Colonel Clark, are in a position to give us an estimate of what percentage of the total volume of tonnage these charter ships take away from Alaska Steam? Mr. CLARK. I couldn't give you that figure. I certainly would pledge you that we will try to come up with some suggestions on meeting this supplementary service which we feel is just as badly needed as you indicated. Senator BARTLETT. Did Mr. CLARK. In past years, of course, they have helped to solve their problems by more or less cooperative efforts, two or three merchants banding together, two or three fish dealers, and we have been expanding our service within recent years, by extending our van serv ice. Now we put a van ashore in Ketchikan; I don't know whether Pinkerton indicated to you, we land a van, and he loads it, and when he gets it completely loaded, we pick it up with a southbound ship. That service has been started in the last 2 or 3 years, because his volume wouldn't warrant instituting it earlier; and we are expanding it. If he is connected by road with Ketchikan, it may be that we will be able to extend a van to him, and help solve his problem in that way. As to your question of the tonnage involved, Mr. Green may be able to answer it; Mr. Green is our agent here in Juneau, and he is familiar with this service. I don't know whether he knows the tonnage that these Ketchikan merchants have. Senator BARTLETT. Let's leave it this way, Colonel Clark: The committee doesn't seek to elicit any information that might be company business only. However, if these are public records, if you could supply these figures for our use on the southeastern Alaska tonnage, and if Mr. Ireland could do similarly for his group then we would have a better comparison of the amount of business that the charter group actually does. Mr. CLARK. We will supply that. I might add this for the record, that a competitor of ours, 2 years ago, made a very careful survey of the potential tonnage available in southeastern Alaska, and decided that there wasn't enough to warrant them coming in here and doing business. Senator BARTLETT. Colonel Clark, has the Alaska Steamship Co. taken any position with reference to the establishment of a ferry service in southeastern Alaska? Mr. CLARK. We are members of the Southeastern Conference. Mr. Toner, when he spoke to you today, spoke for us as well as everyone else. We aren't endorsing any specific plan, but we would concur in anything that would help develop this area. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Colonel Clark. Mr. Barton? Mr. BARTON. No questions, Senator Bartlett. Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Ireland, may I recall you for one moment? Mr. IRELAND. Yes, surely. Senator BARTLETT. I merely wanted to ask you if your understanding of-should I say "legal situation" is in harmony with that of Colonel Clark? Mr. IRELAND. The legal, the statutory exemption, was to clarify a confusion of the records, where one person can charter a vessel without any question; then two or more should be able to. And this exemption is simply to clarify that judicial decision. Senator BARTLETT. Colonel Clark stated as his opinion that with incorporation you will not need exemption legislation. Mr. IRELAND. Our incorporation, together with the modus operandi have been changed to more completely conform to all requirements laid down by our judiciary system as not requiring regulation. However, this exemption, as expressed in the statute, would take it beyond any questionable doubt; that is, we would not have to go through another trial to reach the same conclusion. Senator BARTLETT. Well, this puts an entirely different light upon S. 2669. It may or may not be needed. You would agree with Colonel Clark on that? Mr. IRELAND. Yes. Senator BARTLETT. Is there any way that we could discover before the 2d session of the 86th Congress convenes, positively, absolutely, definitely, definitively, and categorically, whether there is an absolute positive vigorous need for this? Mr. IRELAND. The only way that I could Mr. BARTON. As the law states it. Mr. IRELAND. You are right, Mr. Barton, I agree that the only way that that could be done, if we could petition Judge Bowen for a judicial determination of the issues. Senator BARTLETT. I hope that the petition will be immediately offered. Thank you, Mr. Ireland. Mr. Ireland, do you have anything else to add at this time, for the record? Mr. IRELAND. Yes, Senator. There is one point in the original statute and in the amendment which I previously forgot to mention, and that is, specifically, that the inland waters between the State of Washington and southeastern Alaska have already been excluded from the maximum regulations of the Coast Guard as far as manning requirements is concerned. There is a minimum manning requirement specified by Congress, by an amendment made on February 19, 1895, so that the safety factor required to protect the public interest at large, has long been recognized by this exemption, and which has since been continued; and it is further ratified by the treaty between the United States and Canada, defining certain waters of the west coast of North America as sheltered waters, dated December 9, 1933. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Ireland. Senator BARTLETT. I should now like to offer for the record two radiograms received by me, one from Louis G. Scott, Tokeen Cold Storage Co., Inc., urging passage of S. 2669. Senator E. L. BARTLETT, [Telegram] JUNEAU, ALASKA, October 21, 1959. Passage S. 2669 imperative. This year shipped 1,200,000 pounds frozen fish ex my cold storage at Tokeen which cannot be served by large vessels account narrow channels. Urge every effort continue small vessel service. TOKEEN COLD STORAGE Co., INC., Louis G. Scott. Senator BARTLETT. Another telegram from Wrangell Cold Storage Co., Inc., H. G. Heaton, expressing a similar desire. Senator E. L. BARTLETT, [Telegram] JUNEAU, ALASKA, Northbound pickup for Seattle discharge service provided by large vessels at our Wrangell plant entirely inadequate for shipment mild cure and frozen fish. Must continue receive service from small vessels to permit orderly movement to market. Last season over 2 million pounds shipped. Please extend to your subcommittee our earnest request for favorable action on S. 2669. WRANGELL COLD STORAGE CO., INC., Senator BARTLETT. And for the record, here is a letter from the Northern Products Corp., distributors of American and Canadian mild cured and frozen salmon, canned salmon, 705 Terminal Sales Building, Seattle, Wash. U.S.A., dated October 20, 1959, reading as follows: Senator E. L. BARTLETT, Chairman of the Subcommittee, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Juneau, Alaska. DEAR MR. BARTLETT: We have been advised that hearings will be held this coming Thursday in Juneau covering a variety of legislative proposals among which will be a proposal to extend the life of Public Law 85-739 for a period of 4 years beyond March 15, 1960. We understand that this is an act enabling small vessels under 150 tons to continue providing much needed freight service between Puget Sound ports and southeastern Alaska. We handle a considerable volume of fishery products originating in the various ports of southeastern Alaska, for transportation to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Sattle, Wash., and other Puget Sound ports. The services rendered by these small refrigerated vessels have proven invaluable to us in the fishing industry, giving us service that is not obtainable from the larger carriers and also at a cost that enables us to compete in the fishery markets of the United States and Europe. We are keenly interested in the extension of the act enabling this service to be maintained and continued. Your efforts in support of this act will be greatly appreciated by those of us who are actively participating in one of Alaska's great industries-fishing. Yours very truly, NORTHERN PRODUCTS CORP., Senator BARTLETT. Since there are no further witnesses the committee will be in recess, and will convene again at Anchorage, on Saturday morning. (Whereupon, at 6 p.m. October 22, 1959, the committee recessed to reconvene Saturday morning, October 24, at Anchorage, Alaska.) |