The meeting then passed a resolution unanimously opposing this bill in its present form on the ground that the provisions of the bill in which the powers were given to the President were entirely too broad, without limitation and without restriction.

That, gentlemen, is the basis of the opposition which I am going to voice on behalf of the association this morning. The bill as it stands and in its present wording authorizes the President to make any rules that he has a mind to in connection with the navigation of ships on international waters.

Gentlemen, as you can appreciate, and as your questions heretofore put have indicated, before any rules or regulations can have any real power or effect in the navigation of ships on the high seas, where the vessels of all flags and nations are constantly meeting and navigating with respect to each other, there must be some uniformity of practice; there must be uniformity in the rules and regulations which govern the navigation of those ships.

If this bill were put through in the form in which it stands at the present time there is no limitation, no words of qualification or limitation which require the President to do anything to secure the consent. and approval of any of these other nations whose consent and approval is so necessary in order to make any effective rules or regulations.

Gentlemen, if that consent and approval is not required, then I don't see how we can have or expect to receive any consideration from any rules which the President propounds or promulgates under this bill without receiving the consent of these other nations.

If the President were given such powers it would be a very marked departure from the practice and experience that we have had in the promulgation of such rules in the past. Our practice has been invariably, when any question arises as to the making of rules of the road, to regulate the navigation of ships on the high seas, to secure the approval of the other nations of the world-the maritime nations of the world.

The rules under which we have been operating for the past 60 years were brought into being in just that way. A maritime convention. was called in 1889 at which the delegates of all the leading maritime nations of the world were present. Those delegates, by the way, were probably the best qualified group of men you could get to pass upon the necessities of rules and regulations for the navigation of ships.

They consisted not only of ship masters, naval officers, judges, and admiralty attorneys, but also men in other branches of the shipping world who were qualified and experienced in the matters that would be involved in the consideration of regulations of the road.

At that convention a set of rules were gotten up, and approved by the delegates, and after they were approved they were ratified by all of the maritime nations. The United States as one of those nations ratified those rules.

It is interesting to note, gentlemen, in our consideration of the proper way in which to handle this situation, that the way it was done in 1890 was to have that group of regulations and rules incorporated bodily, right into the laws of our land, by statutory enactment made by Congress in 1890. Those rules have stood ever since.

From time to time there has been discussion as to whether or not they should be amended. The most recent of those discussions took place at the maritime convention that was held in 1948. At that

convention, as I understand it, the representatives of some 30 maritime nations of the world were present.

Various suggestions were made and I think it might be interesting to note that among other suggestions was the suggestion that airplanes when they were navigating on international waters, were to be subject to the same rules and regulations as other ships, and the new rules which were proposed cover that field.

The delegates of some 24 of those nations have already approved the rules and regulations, the additions and proposals of the maritime convention, and only six of those nations, as we understand it, have not as yet given their approval.

Those six nations are the United States, Norway, Italy, Panama, Honduras, and Argentina. That, gentlemen, is our information. It may not be up to date, but it is our best information up to the present time.

Now the question is, How are we going to take care of this situation? It seems to me that the best thought we could have on the subject is that those rules and regulations which they now propose should be handled in the same way as we have handled them in the past, that is, we can take them right in bodily into the laws of our country and by statutory enactment of Congress incorporate them into our laws.

That is what we did in connection with the past set, and that is what we possibly could do and possibly should do in connection with the present rules. We think that the powers given to the President under this bill are not only broad and general- too broad and general -but we think there is also the grave possibility that if the bill is passed in its present form that it might be considered unconstitutional, in other words, that it is a delegation to the President of legislative duties which are vested by the Constitution in Congress, and should not be passed on to somebody else.

The question is, Is the making of rules and regulations relating to the navigation of ships on the high seas a matter of legislative function? I think, gentlemen, we may get a partial answer to that question by examining how we have disposed of similar questions in the past. As I have already pointed out, in connection with the international rules of the road relating to the navigation of ships on the high seas, the manner in which it has been done has been to take those rules bodily into our laws in the manner I have stated.

Not only was that done, gentlemen, in connection with the international rules, but in connection with the rules governing the navigation of ships in all of the waters of the United States a similar disposition was made of the matter.

For example, the inland rules which are the principal rules relating to the navigation of ships in the inland waters of the United States. were handled in just that way. They were incorporated bodily into the laws of our land by statutory enactment, made by Congress

in 1897.

In addition to those rules there are the rules for the governing of the regulation of shipping and navigation on the waters of the Great Lakes. Those rules, too, were brought in bodily into our laws by statutory enactment in 1895.

Finally, the rules relating to the navigation of vessels on the waters of the Red River and rivers emptying into the Gulf of Mexico were also taken in bodily into our laws by statutory enactment made by Congress again in 1895.

There is good reason, gentlemen, to believe that the manner in which those rules and regulations were incorporated into our law is an expression of legislative intent and policy on the part of Congress, and indicates that Congress considers that the making of rules and regulations of this kind is a legislative function to be performed by Congress and not to be passed on to any other individual like the President or to any other organization.

It is true yesterday Mr. Avery referred to pilot rules. Gentlemen, before the enactment, as I believe it, of these rules that I have referred. to, the supervising local inspectors years ago were given the power to draw up rules and they did. Those rules are known as the pilot rules. But, gentlemen, those rules for the most part are a duplication of the subsequently enacted rules that I have just referred to.

In fact, where any of the provisions of the old pilot rules were in conflict with the provisions of the inland rules, the Great Lakes rules: or the rules of the Red River, the courts have held that they are not operative and are invalid.

I don't know anything about the provisions of the Panama Canal Act, but I can't believe that they incorporate any rules or regulations. for the prevention of collisions on the Panama Canal. It would seem to me more likely that they referred to matters of toll, and such things as that.

I was rather surprised to hear Mr. Avery refer to a provision in the civil aeronautics bill that would indicate that the Civil Aeronautics Board was given the power to enact rules and regulations in connection with the navigation of airplanes. That, as I say, was a rather surprising thing to me.

So much so that I called up the legal department of the Civil Aeronautics Board yesterday-yesterday afternoon. Gentlemen, I found this: I found that apparently when they came to consider the question of the promulgation of rules relating to the navigation of airplanes over international waters, the Civil Aeronautics Board didn't attempt to make any regulations governing that feature of the navigation of airplanes.

Instead of that, gentlemen, I found that an international aviation conference was called at Chicago in the United States in November of 1944. Some 52 nations or representatives of some 52 nations, attended that conference. They drew up plans for the making of an international civil aviation organization which provided for the creation of a council and an assembly which in turn were authorized to consider whatever rules were needed in connection with the international navigation of planes, and it was provided that the council was to recommend practices, adopt international standards known as annexes. Gentlemen, the international conference called in that fashion was ratified by the Senate on July 25, 1946, and it was proclaimed by the President on March 17, 1947. It is interesting to note, by the way, gentlemen, that one of the rules laid down by the council was to this effect: it provided that

in areas in which the international regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea are in force, aircraft operated on the water shall comply with such regulations.

It seems quite apparent from those facts, gentlemen, that even in the air industry in connection with the navigation of airplanes over international waters, agreement among the nations of the world was deemed essential.

It was not thought that the creation or making of rules regulating such navigation was an administrative function. So that it doesn't seem to me that the manner in which rules regulating the navigation of airplanes over international waters was made, is at variance with what I have termed the possible indication of the legislative intent by Congress in the manner in which it has passed these other rules and regulations relating to the navigation of ships, not only on the high seas but also on the inland waters of the United States.

If we are correct in what I have stated that there is this declared legislative intent, that of promulgation of rules of this kind as a legislative function, then, gentlemen, it being part of the law-making duty of the Congress, vested by the Constitution in Congress, Congress cannot constitutionally delegate that power to the President or to anybody else.

It seems to me that the method to handle this situation is the method that we have used for so many years with such success. Let us incorporate them right into the laws of the land and have them enacted by statute by Congress in the way the other rules have been enacted.

If, however, it is thought advisable to take care of the situation in the form of a bill such as the one that has been submitted, then there is no reason, gentlemen, why the intent of the whole proceeding should not be carried out in simple, plain, understandable language. The President should be authorized to proclaim only the international rules and regulations which were approved by the convention of 1948. That is a simple enough matter. There is no reason why we should put anything else in such a bill.

I don't quite understand why it should have been worded in the manner in which it has been, except that in the letter of transmittal which was sent by the Treasury Department accompanying this bill, I understand, it is stated that—

upon the recommendation of the Department of State the proposed bill has been drafted in terms broad enough to enable the President to proclaim new regulations at any time in the future.

Why it should be necessary to allow the President to declare new regulations at any time and in any way he saw fit? Frankly, gentlemen, I don't know. I do not see any good reason why it should be done.

We did not need to do it before; no provision has ever been made in any of the statutory enactments that have been made by Congress in connection with the adoption of rules of the road for the adoption of any new rules without consultation with the other nations; there is no provision made to turn it over to any organization or any individual or any agency of the Government.

They have just incorporated them bodily, right into our laws, and that was the end of it. If there were any new laws required, then they were handled in the same way as the old ones. That, gentlemen, it seems to me is the proper way to do it. If, however, it should be considered that in agreeing to the recommendations of the international convention of 1948 we are making an agreement almost of a treaty character with these other foreign nations, then, gentlemen, it could be considered as part of the treaty-making functions of the Senate and the rules and regulations could be ratified by the Senate with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

I don't think that two-thirds approval would be difficult to obtain. It was stated yesterday as one of the reasons why the bill in its present form should be that if the rules and regulations were incorporated into the laws of the land in the way in which the other rules and regulations were incorporated, that it would be a time-consuming operation.

Gentlemen, I do not quite see why that should be so. There is no objection that I know of that has been voiced by any real element of the shipping industry in the United States to the approval of the rules and regulations that were recommended by the 1948 convention.

As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the Coast Guard a short time ago called a meeting of all the various shipping interests throughout the United States and a meeting was held at which these rules were discussed at great length. The rules were approved.

Gentlemen, if we have another bill and we try in that bill to incorporate all these rules and regulations proposed by the 1948 conference into one law, then at the hearings which are held I don't believe there will be any opposition expressed. So that the hearings should not take any length of time and they should go into final statutory form without any trouble whatever.

I don't see how the question of time is a real element to be considered in this case. It is far more important that Congress protect its law-making and legislative powers and not turn them over to any other individual or agency, particularly where there is this serious question as to whether it is constitutional or not to do so. And it is, I think, gentlemen, a serious question as to whether or not the promulgation of rules of this kind is not a legislative function of Congress which it must perform itself and which cannot be delegated to anybody else.

Gentlemen, I am not prepared to speak for the Association with respect to the provision or the proposed section which Mr. Avery suggested yesterday should be added to the bill, that is the "blackout" provision. But my offhand opinion and I am not speaking for the association when I say this-is that it would be a rather odd thing for the United States, after 24 nations have already expressed their approval of the recommended rules of 1948-rules recommended by the convention of 1948-if the United States, in saying "We too agree to those rules, but now we want to put this little exception in," it would be an odd thing.

None of the other nations has done that. It would be rather odd for the United States to try to do it. Furthermore, it is, on its face, a proposed exception to the rules that we are approving. If it is an exception it would seem to me that as an exception it should receive the same approval and consent from all other nations as any other exception to the rules.

If it is of such importance, as Mr. Avery stressed yesterday that it was, then I am at a loss to understand why its importance was not brought out at the 1948 convention.

If it was brought out and was discussed at that convention and the convention did not see fit to incorporate it as one of the proposed rules and regulations in the new rules and regulations, then, gentlemen, it must have been because the other nations did not think it was a rule that should be put in, or an exception that should be put in.

If now we try, by this method, to add an exception on to the general rules which we are otherwise approving, there is no reason why some of the other nations should not do the same thing.