TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES VESSELS ON FRIDAY, JULY 2, 1954 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 5 ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE OF THE The subcommittee met at 9:56 a. m., pursuant to call, in room G-16 Present: Senator Duff (chairman of the subcommittee). Also present: Bertram O. Wissman, chief clerk; Robert L'Heureux, Senator DUFF. The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, a copy of S. 3594 will be inserted in the record at (S. 3594 is as follows:) [S. 3594, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To protect the rights of vessels of the United States on the high seas and in Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States SEC. 2. In any case where- (a) a vessel of the United States is seized by a foreign country on the (b) there is no dispute of material facts with respect to the location or the Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable take such action as he deems SEC. 4. The Secretary of State shall take such action as he may deem appro- SEC. 5. There are authorized to be appropriated such amounts as may be Senator DUFF. This bill is designed to protect the rights of private vessels documented under the laws of the United States and any fishing vessels owned by citizens of the United States on the high seas and in territorial waters of foreign countries. The main provision of the bill would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to attend to the welfare of a vessel and crew when the vessel is seized by a foreign country on the basis of rights or claims in territorial waters or on the high seas which are not recognized by the United States. The Secretary of State would be required further to take appropriate action to secure the release of the vessel and crew and pay any fines or post any bonds that may be exacted by the detaining country for such release. We shall first hear from the Government and then from the industry witnesses. The first witness as I understand is Mr. William C. Harrington, Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife of the Department of State. Is he here? I understand he is on his way. Is Mr. W. M. Chapman, director of research for the American Tunaboat Association of San Diego, Calif., present? Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes, sir. Senator DUFF. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF W. M. CHAPMAN, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIF. Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed I would like to state that I have 19 appendices which I would like to ask permission to have included. Senator DUFF. They will be included at the conclusion of your presentation, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CHAPMAN. My name is W. M. Chapman. I am the director of research for the American Tunaboat Association of San Diego, Calif., an organization of the owners of commercial fishing vessels fishing for tuna by the live-bait method. For the purpose of this hearing I am also representing the organizations listed in the sheet that is appended to the copy of my statement (appendix 1). These organizations represent substantially all of the fishermen, vessel owners, cannery owners, and cannery workers comprising the fishing industry of southern California and most of the high seas fishermen operating out of the Pacific Northwest. We strongly support S. 3594. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of S. 3594 is to place private vessels of the United States under the protection of the body of United States law when they are operating on the sea outside the jurisdictional waters of the United States within the rights recognized by their sovereign, the United States, as pertaining to it under international law. THE BILL Section 1 defines the term "vessel of the United States" as used in this act. All private vessels documented under the laws of the United States are included within the term. This applies to vessels 5 net registered tons and over. Also included within the definition of the term are all fishing vessels owned by a citizen of the United States. This second category of vessels is included for the purpose of bringing within the purview of the act those numerous small vessels which, by reason of being less than 5 net registered tons in size, cannot be documented under United States law. We recommend that the word "private" be substituted for the word "fishing" toward the end of line 5. This would bring within the purview of the act the numerous pleasure vessels of less than 5 net registered tons that are not documented but often, or customarily, are operated by their owners on the sea outside the jurisdictional waters of the United States. Section 2 is the heart of the bill. It provides authority for the Secretary of State to take specified actions to secure the release of a vessel of the United States which has been seized on the sea by a foreign country on the basis of rights or claims asserted by that country but not recognized by the United States. The Secretary of State shall take these actions where there is no dispute of material fact between the two countries with respect to the location or activity of the vessel at the time of its seizure. No definition is made of the rights on the sea which shall be recognized by the United States. Consequently this act does not affect in any way the flexibility with which the United States can deal with problems arising in this field of foreign affairs. If, as a result of needs not now foreseen, it becomes necessary for the United States to recognize under international law or policy rights or claims by foreign nations on the sea which it does not now recognize, it can do so with no impediment provided by this legislation. But whatever rights on the sea that the United States understands it has under international law at any particular time or place become, under this legislation, rights which its private vessels can exercise with the benefits of protection of United States law provided by the act. What a fisherman wants most of all is to know where and how he can operate on the sea without being molested in those operations by a foreign government. That is what the industry sought. We were told, however, that this field of international practice was under active. review in regional international bodies, in the United Nations, and before the International Court of Justice. As a consequence, some adjustment of policy on this subject by the United States might be required in the immediate or more distant future. Having metes and bounds for the high seas, or having rigid definitions of rights under international law, included in domestic legislation might seriously impede the ability of the United States to adjust itself to the flow of events in this field of international practice. We were further told that United States policy at any particular time on these matters was available to us. Accordingly, we have accepted the present language. While it does not necessarily tell the fisherman where and how he can safely operate next year, it does tell him where and how he can so operate next trip, which is a big advantage over present conditions. Section 2 (b) has been agreed to with reluctance by the industry. This provides that where there is a dispute of material fact with respect to the location or activity of the vessel at the time of its seizure this act will not apply. A chief reason for such reluctance is that in 50291-54--2 several countries off which United States vessels operate it is common practice to give the officers of the seizing vessel a share of any fine placed upon the seized vessel. This creates a financial desirability for such officers to seize a vessel at one place and accuse it of fishing at another place much closer to shore, or to seize a vessel close to shore when it is engaged in innocent passage and claim that it was fishing. The normal thing is for the foreign government to accept the word of its seizing officers and not that of the officers of the vessel that it seized. It has not been unknown that a foreign government might even, for policy reasons, desire such seizures as harassing measures. In such cases the dispute is between two sovereign governments. Neither can force the other before an investigative or judicial body under its own jurisdiction to argue and determine the facts. Such disputes can only be argued before appropriate international bodies. Due to these circumstances we have had to agree to the present wording and except all seizures in which there is a dispute of material fact from the effect of this legislation. We have agreed to this because (a) we are primarily interested in being protected from seizure under claims made to broad extension of territoriality and far at sea, in which there could be no reasonable dispute as to material fact, (b) we must agree to the general good faith and veracity of foreign nations, and (c) the legislation does not hamper the United States in taking a case involving such disputed material facts before an appropriate international body for argument and determination, although the fisherman might be required to wait months or years for vindication. Provided that the seizure has been made under rights or claims in international law not recognized by the United States and there is no dispute of material fact between the United States and the seizing country with respect to the location or activity of the vessel when it was seized then the Secretary of State is authorized and directed, as soon as is practicable to take such action as he deems appropriate to (1) attend to the welfare of the vessel and its crew while it is held captive, (2) secure the release of the vessel and crew, and (3) pay any fines or post any bonds that may be required by such country for such release. Once again the bill, by permitting the Secretary of State to determine how soon practicable is and what actions may be appropriate, refrains from binding the hands of the Executive in the conduct of foreign affairs. In view of the fact that individual vessels operate on the high seas under no right that pertains to them individually and only under rights that pertain to their sovereign, the United States fishing industry wanted the United States, its sovereign, to tell it where and how it could fish on the high seas and then to protect it while doing so by paying the expense of any seizure by a foreign government incurred by such an individual vessel while so acting. The biggest such expense is not the fine, or bond, but the loss of earnings suffered by vessel and crew during lengthy detention. We encountered two sorts of objection to this full protection: (1) The Secretary of State could not be expected to act as a Court of Claims for determining what losses in earnings were suffered by vessel and crew because of illegal detention. Therefore the bill would have to be rewritten to direct such matters to the Court of Claims. (2) The Congress might be more reluctant to provide full financial coverage to fish under these conditions than it would to provide the limited protection set forth in the present bill. We accepted the present language with this reasoning: (1) If the Secretary of State acts with reasonable speed and energy under this bill there will be little or no loss of earnings to a seized vessel or crew because detention will be brief; (2) If the Congress shows its interest in protecting United States vessels in their legal operations on the high seas even to this limited extent there is little likelihood of much seizure activity by foreign countries for the purpose of enforcing unilaterally claims in international law not recognized by the United States, and by so doing endangering the good will of the Congress; and (3) If events prove either of these lines of reason to be faulty there is no reason why the Congress could not at a later date enact more definitive and protective legislation. Section 3 excepts two sorts of seizures from the provisions of this act: (1) Seizures made by a country at war with the United States; and (2) Seizures made in accordance with the provisions of any fishery convention or treaty to which the United States is a party. The first is self-explanatory. With respect to the second it may be stated that the United States is already party to several fishery conservation treaties with several foreign countries. All of these have been sponsored by the affected branches of the United States fishing industry. We wholeheartedly support them now, and the regulatory actions taken under them on the high seas or elsewhere. More important than the desire to protect present treaties from the effect of this legislation, however, is the desire to provide even further flexibility to the Executive in the conduct of this branch of foreign affairs. If for any reason it becomes desirable for the United States to restrict its fishermen's activity off the shore of another country or countries, or to prohibit them entirely, either for a stated period of time or forever, this can be readily accomplished by engaging to do so under treaty with such country or countries. The fishing industry is heartily agreeable to this measure of flexibility for these reasons, among others: (1) Such restrictions will be under law so that we will know where we stand; (2) The fishing industry abhors international friction as much as does the Government and has consistently urged the United States over the years to engage in conservation and other treaties on fishing rights designed to reduce cr eliminate international friction growing out of fishing disputes; and (3) When such matters are handled under treaty law the affected branch of the fishing industry has an opportunity to be heard by the appropriate committee of Congress before the United States ratifies the treaty. Section 4 is for the purpose of letting the Secretary of State know that the Congress expects him, eventually, to recover from the foreign country any money expended by the United States under this act because of the seizure of a United States vessel by such country. Once again, however, utmost flexibility in the conduct of foreign affairs is retained by the executive by instructing the Secretary of State to take only such actions as he may deem appropriate to make and collect such claims, without any specification as to time or other condition. |