. of power, and it becomes well nigh impossible to stem such a tide by congressional action under the provisions of the Reorganization Act. These are facts that we are faced with and, while they are not a part of the resolution under consideration, we believe they do emphasize the vital importance of Congress arousing itself to the dangers of this situation before it is too late. We want to urge, therefore, that the committee recommend favorably on Senate Resolution 265 disproving plan No. 21 and, that it exhaust every possible means to convey to the Senate the vital importance of supporting its action, in the difficult conditions under which the Senate must act under the provisions of the reorganization law. BALTIMORE CHAPTER ASSOCIATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PRACTITIONERS, Baltimore, Md., May 8, 1950. Mr. WALTER L. REYNOLDS, Chief Clerk, Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments, DEAR SIR: On behalf of the Baltimore Chapter of the Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Practionioners I am enclosing three copies of a resolution adopted by the chapter in opposition to Reorganization Plan No. 21 of 1950. It would be greatly appreciated if this resolution can be included in the committee's record of hearing upon Senate Resolution 265. If any further statement is desired the chapter will be glad to furnish it or additional copies of the resolution. Yours very truly, RESOLUTION KARL J. GRIMM, Whereas on March 13, 1950, the President of the United States submitted to the Congress, pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949, Reorganization Plan No. 21 of 1950, abolishing the Maritime Commission and transferring its functions to a Federal Maritime Board and a Maritime Administration under a Maritime Administrator, both to be established in the Department of Commerce, and in addition said plan provides that there shall be in the Department of Commerce an additional office of Under Secretary, with the title "Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation," who shall be appointed by the President by and with the consent of the Senate and who shall perform "such duties as the Secretary of Commerce shall prescribe"; and Whereas in his message transmitting such plan to the Congress the President stated that it is his "purpose to look to the Secretary of Commerce for leadership with respect to transportation problems and for the development of over-all transportation policy within the executive branch"; and Whereas such plan does not conform to the recommendations of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government regarding the Maritime Commission and in the establishment of the office of Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation constitutes a clear threat to the independence of regulatory commissions such as the Interstate Commerce Commission and may lead to increasing interference with and domination of such agencies by the executive branch of the Government; and Whereas said plan will become effective on May 23, 1950, under the terms of the Reorganization Act of 1949, unless rejected prior to that date by the passage by the affirmative vote of a majority of the authorized membership of either House of Congress, of a resolution expressly rejecting said plan: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Baltimore Chapter of the Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioners, That Reorganization Plan No. 21 of 1950 be disapproved and that the Members of both Houses of Congress be urged to reject it, and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be presented to each of the Senators and Representatives from the State of Maryland, and that copies be transmitted to the House and Senate Committees on Expenditures in Executive Departments and to the Executive Committee of the Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioners and to each of the regional chapters thereof. Adopted this 27th day of April 1950. Attest: O. W. HUBBARD, Chapter Chairman. KARL J. GRIMM, Acting Secretary. STATEMENT OF ROSCOE H. HUPPER My name is Roscoe H. Hupper. I am a lawyer, member of the firm of Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, 27 William Street, New York City, with which I have been connected since 1911, since which time I have practiced actively in various shipping, transportation, and other commercial matters both before courts and Commissions, including Interstate Commerce Commission and the Maritime Commission and its predecessors. I make this statement principally as a citizen, and against the background of my experience and observation, for such aid as the same may be to your committee. I support Senate Resolution 265 but my doing so is not pursuant to any retainer or request by any particular interest; rather because of my personal belief that plan 21 as now before your committee should not be permitted to become effective because adverse to what I conceive to be the national interest in shipping. My views thereon appear in the several numbered paragraphs below. My comments stem to considerable extent from my contacts with shipping men of many nationalities over a period of nearly 40 years and my representation of many of them in legal matters affecting ship affairs before courts and Commissions; likewise from being counsel for many years to various conferences both in domestic and widespread foreign trades as established under section 15 of the 1916 Shipping Act. I have a further contact with shipping in that, as trustee, I am sole stockholder of Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc., a seasoned common carrier (not subsidized) which owns and operates 16 substantially new C-3 and C-2 vessels (acquired under the 1946 Ship Sales Act) in our intercoastal trade and in foreign trades. It may be that substantially all its operations will presently be in the intercoastal trade. That company has not participated in announcements heretofore made on behalf of a considerable number of other carriers indicating that they did not intend to oppose plan 21. Their reasons for this view are naturally not my concern, but I can say that my contacts throughout the shipping fraternity have given me the distinct impression that there is a complete lack of enthusiasm for plan 21, and lack of faith in its purpose or power of accomplishment, amounting almost to a sense of frustration. Coming now to certain major points: I. Why discard our Maritime Commission?-The set-up of the Commission is that of an independent agency responsible to Congress created by section 201 of the 1936 Merchant Marine Act following the declaration of policy in section 101 thereof, following the most thorough investigation and consideration. It is specially to be noted that section 201 divides membership between political parties and staggers terms of the Commissioners; this doubtless to minimize political considerations and control. Having noted the barrage of discontent which has been leveled at the Commission over a considerable recent period I find myself confused as to the reason for or purpose of the same. At any rate I condemn it as exhibiting a lack of fair perspective in respect of the functions and performance of this important governmental body. This I say notwithstanding that I have noted signs of discontent or friction within the Commission itself; but emphasis on such would also seem to me a distortion of perspective. Restoration of a true perspective, affected neither by praise nor blame, would appear to be most necessary. It is right to admit that the Commission, like most other bodies whether private or public, even on occasion Congress itself, have not always operated at the highest level of efficiency. This is but common human experience. On occasion the heart and incentive for highest efficiency and cooperation has rather been taken out of the Commission members and representatives by a form of treatment from a privileged seat which although probably not so intended could in a cooler moment be described as unduly harsh. Matters of criticism generally have two sides but it ought to be remembered that the Commission has had and still has stupendous duties form, quite enough to consume for some time yet the time and ener gies of its entire membership. There has been inevitably a heavy hang-over of affairs as aftermath of the war, among which may be mentioned the ship-sales program, the chartering program, and the subsidy program, to say nothing of regulatory matters, the problems as to shipbuilding, and a few considerations as to the future in international affairs where shipping is or may be involved. Congress itself in these last few months has been making a considerable investigation into a long-range program. By plan 6 only recently put into operation the Chairman of the Commission was given enlarged powers, and the President doubtless has authority' to go further in this respect. Besides it should be simple to amend the Merchant Marine Act if additional authority or enlarged compensation were deemed necessary by Congress. The possible efficiency of the independent agency set-up of the Maritime Commission will be brought to mind and emphasized by recalling the performance of Joseph P. Kennedy as first Chairman, likewise the chairmanship of Admiral Land, likewise the valiant service of Admiral Vickery; also of many others who have held the post of Commissioner or other office in the Commission. I venture the thought that there can be no reason against constant attainment by the Commission of whatever efficiency is requisite. I have had the privilege of some acquaintance, as I recall, with every Commissioner of this body and with many of its other personnel from the time the Shipping Board was organized under the Shipping Act 1916 up to the present date. Against the background of all the foregoing I state that the current attacks on the Commission are substantially uninformed and ill-considered; and that the greatest spirit of helpfulness and cooperation should be evinced pending the reaching of a far better conclusion than the one projected before your committee by plan 21. Nobody has suggested yet what departure from the independent agency principle would gain for us; nor has any reason been suggested why Congress should permit its substantially direct control of this great national interest of shipping (just because of occasional hard problems, or shortage of patience) being renounced and turned over to some executive department. In event that mistake should be made, who can say that sometime the inquiries of Congress might be answered only as from behind an iron curtainwith a genial suggestion that the executive is independent of the legislative. It is appropriate to add here that the very pendency of this plan 21 has already been prejudical to the functioning of the Commission and to important maritime interests. Proposed abolishment of the Commission (the Chairman only definitely to be retained in the proposed Maritime Board) has placed four worthy gentlemen in doubt as to their continuance with any part or character of the official status for which they were selected under section 201 of the Merchant Marine Act, and confirmed by the Senate. An unjust and unseemly situation has thus resulted in which it must be difficult for them severally to avoid pulling, if they could find one, some political string in aid of continuance in office. This by itself is bad enough but from point of view of the public interest it is much worse; seeing that these gentlemen since March 13 last can scarcely have had peace of mind adequate to give them complete devotion to their public duties. The resultant bogging down of public business has become rather apparent, and importantly noticed in the press. Procedural delays have already been far too great and costly to carriers and to the public even when our Commissions have been functioning regularly. Something must surely be done about that before long, in any event; seeing that our administrative bodies now appear often to out-legalize and out-technicalize our courts. However, when a fairly complete bogging down results from such a proposition as plan 21, the situation becomes truly destructive and unendurable both as concerns the Commission and the public interest which the Commission is bound to serve. II. Our merchant marine requires an independent agency.-Our ships are now of superb quality, operated by men of the highest capability. There are great difficulties and obstacles particularly in the foreign trade resulting from almost overwhelming competition, due principally to much higher costs than the shipowners of other nations have to bear. This circumstance is at the base of our national subsidy policy, which has been deliberately adopted as a matter of national necessity, in contrast to the policy of placing our reliance as to commerce and safety largely on the shipping of other nations through medium of charters, etc., which on many occasions would involve lower expenditures. Our world responsibility has substantially dictated our shipping policy. The myriad questions which attach to shipping, whether foreign or domestic, are of special content and quality which fit well into the functions and supervision of an independent agency, and for aid in which such an agency appears to be absolutely requisite for close collaboration with Congress. Many of us recall the great benefit of such collaboration which continued many years as between Senator White in the Senate and Mr. Bland of Virginia in the House both with the present Commission and its predecessors. Putting control of shipping into any executive department would be a complete back-track on the tried and true independent-agency principle which had its first expression in the 1916 Shipping Act, after most extensive hearings and consideration beginning in 1911. The question and proposition then pending was as to whether this country should be important in maritime affairs or not. That we should become so important was demonstrated by the First World War and its aftermath and again demonstrated by the Second World War and its still pending aftermath. The character of the Shipping Board as an independent agency was based on the pattern of the Interstate Commerce Commission as established in 1887 to deal principally with rail transportation. There is a parity of purpose and necessity as between land traffic and high-seas shipping which naturally calls for independent agencies responsible directly to Congress, without interference from other bodies. It would surely be scarcely endurable that the functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission should be turned over to any Executive Department, and less endurable if that shoulud be possible as concerns the Maritime Commission. Both Commissions have performed well and justified their establishment and continuance, quite irrespective of defects in performance which show up from time to time, and which can always be cured by a refreshed sense of responsibility-whether on the initiative of Congress or from the side of a reasonably vocal public. III. Why substitute the Department of Commerce for the Maritime Commission? The Department of Commerce was not established with any purpose that it would ever be called upon to carry out in any respect such functions as the Merchant Marine Act states. None of its personnel have ever shown any capabilities or sense of direction in the matter of our shipping or national shipping policy that would justify said Department in having the slightest measure of participation in or control over the making or fixation of shipping policy— any more than say the Department of Agriculture or the Post Office Department. Indeed any Executive Department we might name would be just about as well qualified for exercising ocean shipping functions in the national interest as a fairly capable lawyer, by virtue of his profession, would be qualified to be Bishop of Washington. The achievements of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and comparably with it, those of the Maritime Commission, would never have been brought about under the aegis of any executive department, burdened with widespread interests and responsibilities which make impossible that quick focus on problems and necessities that characterize shipping affairs. We need not doubt the capabilities of the Department of Commerce in making important studies and reports but that is no qualification for exercising shipping controls. That the Secretary of Commerce has in mind extensive control is demonstrated by his April 14, 1950, letter to Senator Magnuson in reply to the Senator's letter of April 5. The first portion of the Secretary's letter is gentle, genial and cooperative as concerns that remnant of the Commission characterized as "Maritime Board", but the latter portion (pp. 3-4) indicates rather completely the purpose of the Department to take over all the truly important functions now exercised by the Commission. The hearing on Monday, May 8, developed the view and purpose of the Secretary to take over subsidy control under items (a) and (b) of section 211 of the Merchant Marine Act. This purpose was not very apparent from anything said in his April 14 letter and its specific development at the hearing, although perhaps ascertainable by an informed and careful study of the letter, was almost surreptitious—which circumstance in itself justifies careful questioning of the whole proposition as concerns subsidy control. The purpose of the Secretary if permitted to be carried out would amount to nothing less than a fairly complete vivisection or evisceration of the subsidy provisions of the Merchant Marine Act in respect of their application and administration. In contrast with the protections in section 211 of the Merchant Marine Act directed to avoiding political control, let it be remembered that administration of shipping affairs under the Department of Commerce could not have such protection. That department and its personnel are subject to political winds, tides, and currents which are variable and no executive department yet has been able to avoid harboring now and then personnel of considerable political vigor and disposed * the same in this, that, and the other direction. There is nothing to be gained for transportation and the public interest by such political controls and they should be avoided at all costs. A suggestion that Department of Commerce control would give our national shipping the benefit of Cabinet deliberations is without beneficial weight. The general subject-matter is too involved and complicated to permit of helpful result from consideration by men having so many diverging interests and so busy as Cabinet members. I remain ready to render any further assistance that your committee might request. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, May 8, 1950. Chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Enclosed please find copy of our letter to Senator Scott W. Lucas and Senator Paul H. Douglas, relative to Reorganization Plans Nos. 7, 13, and 21, which have been submitted to Congress by the President. As pointed out in the attached letter, we feel that these reorganization plans should be rejected for the reasons stated. It is our sincere hope that your committee will act accordingly. I. M. HERNDON, BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, May 8, 1950. Hon. SCOTT W. LUCAS, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. Hon. PAUL H. DOUGLAS, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATORS: The Congress at the present time is considering Reorganization Plan No. 7, which was submitted to the Congress by the President on March 15, 1950. This plan, as we understand it, would make substantial changes in the organization of the Interstate Commerce Commission. We also understand that Senator Edwin C. Johnson has introduced Senate Resolution No. 253 which, if approved, would reject Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1950. We urgently request that you support Senator Johnson's resolution and reject the reorganization plan as submitted by the President. Reorganization Plan No. 7 would provide for the appointment of a permanent Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission without the advice and consent of the Senate which is the general rule followed covering appointments of this nature. The Interstate Commerce Commission is an arm of Congress created for the purpose of regulation of transportation agencies generally as defined in the Interstate Commerce Act, and is, therefore, a part of the legislative branch of our Government. We believe that to place the power of appointment of the Chairman of the Commission under the control of the President without the advice and consent of the Senate would not be in the public interest and would, to some extent, remove from the Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce as provided in the Constitution. The proposed Reorganization Plan No. 7 would also give to the Chairman of the Commission, who would be appointed by the President, control over all personnel matters in the Interstate Commerce Commission, as well as the expenditures of the moneys appropriated by the Congress to carry on the work of the Commission. The Interstate Commerce Commission has been functioning for more than 62 years, and the general plan of organization and management of internal organization of the Commission has, we believe, been very satisfactory and no general criticism has been made against the present set-up by anyone directly connected with transportation matters which come before the Commission. To disrupt this plan of organization which has worked so successfully over a long period of time, and to place the control of these matters in the hands of a permanent Chairman to be appointed by the President, would be against the best interests of the public and we urgently request that you use your influence to secure the |