Mr. SHELLEY. Then I think the question similar to the one I asked heretofore was asked, and you, Commander Webb, said in reply to the question "Did you acquiesce in this change?" which appears in this bill, giving broader authority that your answer would have to be "No." That is correct?

Commander WEBB. That is correct. I am speaking, Mr. Shelley, of my personal opinion of the matter at that time.

Mr. SHELLEY. Then, although you did not acquiesce, I would say that since the bill is before us in the present form you were either out-voted in those conferences or your view was not given weight. Is that a proper assumption on my part?

Commander WEBB. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHELLEY. Therefore, the change in the form is not one that was advanced by Coast Guard or Treasury in itself?

Commander WEBB. It was not advanced by the Treasury Depart

ment.

Mr. SHELLEY. Now, may I ask, by whom was it advanced? Several times you and Mr. Harrison have referred to the Department of Justice. Was it advanced by Justice?

Commander WEBB. I would not say it was advanced by Justice. I believe that they support it and are able to support their position here this morning. They support the change, I know, at this time.

Mr. SHELLEY. Then any questions seeking to find out, the reason for making such a change should be addressed to the representative of Justice?

Commander WEBB. That is my belief.

Mr. BENNETT. I would like to ask a sort of technical question. You said something about the territorial waters of the United States in line 8 on page 2. Are those defined anywhere in the statute?

Mr. HARRISON. They are generally accepted to be the 3-mile limit. in the principles of international law. They are not defined by the

statute.

Mr. BENNETT. We have had a good deal of testimony before us in other hearings here which indicate there is some doubt about that. I was just wondering if you could not clarify it by saying it in so many words in this particular statute, because we have had 8 and 12 miles mentioned, and a lot of controversy. Where do you get the words "territorial waters" to put into this particular statute?

Mr. HARRISON. Where did we get them?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes.

Mr. HARRISON. It is a term commonly used to define the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The territorial waters are commonly understood to extend to the 3-mile limit from the coast.

Mr. NELSON. Was it not so set in an international convention to which the United States was a party and the Senate ratified?

Mr. HARRISON. That I could not say. I do not recall any such convention.

Commander WEBB. More specifically, possibly in answer to your question, the phrase "territorial waters" came directly from the Civil Aeronautics Act, which specifically defines the area of authority of the CAB, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and this was put into this bill with direct reference to that act, and the term "territorial waters" was lifted from that act to show that the extent of coverage was to be the same as the authority Congress had granted to the Civil Aeronautics Authority.

Mr. BENNETT. Is the word "territorial waters" defined in that other act?

Commander WEBB. Yes, sir. It is in 49 U. S. C.

Mr. BENNETT. If you define it in the other acts, why didn't you define it in this act? I do think you should look into that and see whether or not you have a thing which is sufficiently tight in view of the fact that it deals with criminal provisions, you might say. We should have it pretty definite.

Commander WEBB. We thought that the definition by reference. would cover it.

The CHAIRMAN. The act you refer to, Commander, is mentioned on page 3, of the bill, is it not, in section 3, the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (U. S. C., 1946 edition, title 49, sec. 177 (a))?

Commander WEBB. Yes, sir; I believe that is the reference.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if Mr. Harrison or the commander, due to their attending these three conferences at which all these other agencies were present

The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Harrison said he was not in attendance. Mr. HARRISON. I did not attend the conferences. Commander Webb attended.

Mr. BARRETT. I understand the commander was at two of them, and missed one. Is that right?

Commander WEBB. No, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. Did you attend the three of them?

I am referring to the conferences there at which this legislation was discussed.

Commander WEBB. After the Treasury Department had submitted the draft, are you referring to the conferences which were called after that draft?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

Commander WEBB. I believe I attended all, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. In any of those was it ever discussed as to how many nations of the 25 which met in the convention in 1948 passed legislation on the promulgation of regulations?

Commander WEBB. Yes, sir. I do not believe that all such nations, in order to approve these and notify the Secretariat and the United Kingdom, would have to pass legislation, sir, but whatever action was needed, be it by council meeting, by their legislative body or whatever it was, that action has been taken by 25 of the 29 who attended.

Mr. BARRETT. You say 25 of the 25 nations?

Commander WEBB. Twenty-five of the twenty-nine.

Mr. BARRETT. Have passed legislation?

Commander WEBB. Twent v-five nations have informed the United Kingdom that they approved the new rules of the road and are ready for the United Kingdom to set the date at least 1 year in advance of the time of this substantial unanimity, and are in a position, by proclamation or whatever that nation needs do, to put those rules into effect on that date, to be specified by the United Kingdom.

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-five out of twenty-nine would appear to me to be nearly a substantial unanimity.

Mr. HARRISON. I have a copy of the letter from the Secretary of the British Embassy to the Secretary of State, listing the nations that have accepted.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you put that in the record, Mr. Harrison, please?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

(The communication referred to is as follows:)

No. 767

BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, D. C., December 18, 1950.

His Majesty's Ambassador for the United Kingdom presents his compliments to the Secretary of State and, in reference to his Note No. 150 dated March 28, 1949, and the Secretary of State's reply dated May 11, 1949, regarding the revised International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1948, has the honour to inform him that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have now accepted these regulations.

2. The Governments of the undermentioned countries have also accepted the revised regulations and His Majesty's Ambassador has the honour to express the hope that the Government of the United States will signify their acceptance in the near future.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Harrison, would it be proper for you to furnish us with a copy of the original draft of the bill that was drawn by you? Mr. HARRISON. I do not know whether that draft is available, whether it was retained in the files. I will have to look through our files and see if it is.

Mr. ALLEN. If it is available and if it is agreeable, I would ask that a copy of the original draft be provided.

The CHAIRMAN. If agreeable to the Coast Guard.

(In response to the direction of the chairman, two drafts of this proposed legislation are submitted herewith. The first draft is the one which was approved by the Merchant Marine Council on June 14, 1949. The second draft is the one which was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget after several additions and changes had been effected after meetings of the Legal Division of the Air Coordinating Committee to consider this legislation. It is believed that consideration of these two early drafts will give a clearer picture of the history of the formation of this proposed legislation.)

A BILL, etc.

SECTION 1. The President, through the Secretary of State, is authorized to conclude in the name of the United States agreements with other nations for the adoption of international regulations for preventing collisions at sea and such regulations shall come into effect for all public and private vessels of the United States on a date fixed in a proclamation of the President following publication of such proclamation and regulations in the Federal Register.

SEC. 2. Effective as of the date upon which such regulations come into effect the Act of August 19, 1890, as amended, is repealed and section 177 (a) of the Act of May 20, 1936 (49 U. S. C. 177a), is amended to read as follows:

"The navigation and shipping laws of the United States, including any definition of 'vessel' and 'vehicle' found therein, shall not be construed to apply to seaplanes or other aircraft except as provided for in the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions.'

SEC. 3. Nothing in this Act shall affect the regulations for preventing collisions and the pilot rules issued thereunder for vessels navigating harbors, rivers, and

inland waters of the United States, or the Red River of the North and the rivers emptying into the Gulf of Mexico and their tributaries, or the Great Lakes of North America and their connecting and tributary waters as far east as the lower exit of the Lachine Canal in Montreal in the Province of Quebec, Canada.

A BILL To authorize the President to proclaim regulations for preventing collisions at sea Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized to proclaim regulations for preventing collisions involving water-borne craft upon the seas, drafted in consultation with and accepted by other maritime nations. Such proclamations, together with the regulations, shall be published in the Federal Register. After the effective date specified in each proclamation such regulations shall be followed by all public and private vessels of the United States, and by all aircraft of United States registry to the extent therein made applicable, upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels. Such regulations shall not apply to the harbors, rivers, and inland waters of the United States; to the Great Lakes of North America and their connecting and tributary waters as far east as the lower exit of the Lachine Canal in Montreal in the province of Quebec, Canada; to the Red River of the North and the rivers emptying into the Gulf of Mexico and their tributaries; nor, with respect to aircraft, to any territorial waters of the United States.

SEC. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (U. S. C., 1946 ed., title 49, sec. 177 (a)), is amended to read as follows:

"Except as specifically provided in the Act to authorize the President to proclaim regulations for preventing collisions at sea, the navigation and shipping laws of the United States, including any definition of 'vessel' or 'vehicle' found therein and including the rules for the prevention of collisions, shall not be construed to apply to seaplanes or other aircraft or to the navigation of vessels in relation to seaplanes or other aircraft."

SEC. 3. Section 610 (a) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (U. S. C., 1946 ed., title 49, sec. 560 (a)) is amended by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (4); by changing the period at the end of paragraph (5) to a semicolon and adding the word “and”; and by adding a new paragraph (6) reading as follows:

"(6) For any person to operate a seaplane or other aircraft of United States registry upon the high seas in contravention of the reguiations proclaimed by the President pursuant to section 1 of the Act to authorize the President to proclaim regulations for preventing collisions at sea."

SEC. 4. Effective as of the date upon which the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1948, as agreed upon at the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1948, come into effect, the Act of August 19, 1890, as amended (U. S. C., 1946 ed., title 33, secs. 61 to 142), is repealed.

Mr. ALLEN. Is there any precedent for the language which appears in section 1, looking particularly to line 8, which says "Such regulation shall have effect as if enacted by statute"?

Commander WEBB. Mr. Allen, the Department of Justice I think is particularly concerned with that language because of possible litigation. That is a technical question dealing with matters of law in connection with trials, and I think they would be particularly ready and able to answer that question.

Mr. ALLEN. I noticed that there do not seem to be any criteria put forward by which the President should be governed in making regularegulations, other than that it shall be regulations for preventing collisions involving water-borne craft on the high seas.

Is it your opinion that the Congress can delegate the power to make regulations with the effect of a statute without any criteria as to what the regulation shall concern?

Commander WEBB. I believe so, on the basis of the precedent legislation. I believe so; yes, sir.

Mr. ALLEN. Under this bill as it now appears, would it not be possible-I will take an extreme case-for the President, after he has

proclaimed the international regulation in force, to make another proclamation, possibly saying that vessels should be manned with twice the number of men in order to have proper watches to prevent collisions at sea and that failure to abide by his regulation would be a criminal offense involving 10 years in jail?"

Commander WEBB. I would not be prepared to go as far as you go. I will agree that by proclamation the President can make some change which would be the law.

Mr. ALLEN. Could he provide that failure to abide by his proclamation would be a criminal offense?

Mr. HARRISON. I do not think he could do that. That would require an act of Congress.

Mr. ALLEN. By what restriction would he be restrained?

Commander WEBB. The international rules have no sanctions. There is no criminal penalty. He cannot invoke one.

Mr. ALLEN. Is it not true that this bill has no reference whatsoever to the international rules?

Commander WEBB. The terminology of Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, I have thought due to the prior rules and regulations on the same subject, could only have reference to international rules. Mr. ALLEN. That may be true, but is it not also true that H. R. 3670 makes no reference whatsoever to the pending situation?

Commander WEBB. Only by that inference, and if that is the worry of the Congress, certainly there would be no objection to clearing up that point.

Mr. ALLEN. You would have no objection whatsoever to making H. R. 3670 applicable only to the present situation, to the present proposed rules?

Commander WEBB. No, sir; I have only said we have no objection to making it clear that these regulations would be, within the commonly accepted term, international rules for prevention of collisions

at sea.

Mr. ALLEN. If there is no criminal penalty involved for violation of the rules, how would you enforce the rules?

Commander WEBB. Mr. Allen, that problem has been with us for half a century. It is peculiarly a Coast Guard problem. There have never been any sanctions. The only way that it is done that I know of is that reports are made and the employers of the people on the vessels who commit the violations are informed, and if they care to take any sanctions against their employees, they can do so.

Mr. WEICHEL. What good is the whole agreement if you cannot enforce it on American-flag ships?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen has not concluded.

Mr. ALLEN. Did you finish your answer? Is it not true that if a man fails to carry lights if he is running at night he is subject to some penalty?

Mr. HARRISON. Proceedings may be instituted against him.

Mr. ALLEN. Is it not true that there is possibility of criminal action being involved?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; and in those cases the case is referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution. There are several criminal statutes-unseaworthy vessels, jeopardizing the lives of persons on board, and so forth.