to me. Of course I do not like to pass upon the other provisions. I do not like to vote upon the whole bill without having had an opportunity to examine into its provisions and hearing it freely discussed and debated before this House. The situation as it now exists with regard to sailing vessels of any tonnage, as I understand it, is that they are now and may be lawfully in charge of a man who is not a master, not a licensed inspector, or who has not any particular knowledge of navigation. For instance, at the present time there is nothing that I know of to prevent a man from going upon a sailing vessel in the harbor of New York, and if circumstances were such that he could get control of it lawfully, to navigate it up and down that very important highway to the great risk and detriment of other men who are engaged in navigation and are familiar with the rules that obtain upon the waters of the harbors and the high seas. I have sailed small craft myself, and I know the grave danger involved, and how the danger increases as the size of the craft and the traffic increases. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. HUGHES of New Jersey. It is really a matter of surprise to me that this very important subject has not long before this had the consideration of Congress. This section provides: The boards of local inspectors shall license and classify the masters, chief mates, and second and third mates, if in charge of a watch, engineers, and pilots of all steam vessels, and masters of sail vessels of over 700 gross tons, and all other vessels of over 100 gross tons carrying passengers for hire. So the very language of the act shows that up to this time it has not been necessary for a man, in order to sail a vessel of that tonnage and to carry passengers for hire on the high seas or on any harbor over which we have control or jurisdiction, to pass any sort of an examination at all. I propose to vote for this bill in order to place this provision upon the statute books. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has again expired. Mr. GREENE. Will the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. SPIGHT] kindly use his time now? Mr. SPIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield my time to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. HUMPHREY]. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. HUMPHREY] is recognized for two minutes. Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say this to the House: There is not time to discuss the details of the bill, but it was reported unanimously. It contains a great deal of very valuable legislation, for which there is great necessity for immediate action. There is no one on the committee who is opposed to the bill, and I trust that the House will pass it, so that it can get to the Senate and become a law before Congress adjourns. [p. 6904] Mr. MANN. Does not the gentleman think that the House ought to know what the important legislation is that is brought in in a bill of this sort? Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. I think the majority of the House do, excluding the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MANN] in that statement. Mr. MANN. I know the gentleman from Washington always knows more than anyone else, but I have asked a dozen gentlemen on the floor of the House as to what is in the bill, and I have found no one that knew. Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. I will say to the gentleman that in two minutes I would not undertake to explain to him. Mr. MANN. I do not think the gentleman could. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on suspending the rules and passing the bill. The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes seemed to have it. Mr. SPIGHT. The yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. WANGER. Mr. Speaker, I make the point that there is no quorum present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is evidently no quorum present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors and the Sergeant-at-Arms will notify absent Members. Those in favor of suspending the rules and passing this bill will, as their names are called, answer "yea," those opposed will answer "nay," those present and not voting will answer "present," and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken, and there were-yeas 230, nays 7, answered "present" 14, not voting, 136, as follows: [p. 6905] 1.30c(3) (b) May 26: Considered and passed Senate, pp. 6963–6972 [No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section] 1.30d 1909 AMENDMENTS TO 1908 ACT February 16, 1909, P.L. 60-231, 35 Stat. 623 CHAP. 132. An Act To amend section eight of the Act approved May twentyeighth, nineteen hundred and eight, entitled "An Act to amend the laws relating to navigation, and for other purposes." Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the requirements in regard to life line or rope contained in section eight of the Act approved May twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred and eight (being chapter two hundred and twelve of the Statutes at Large, first session Sixtieth Congress) entitled "An Act to amend the laws relating to navigation, and for other purposes," shall not apply to any scow or boat the deck outside the coaming or rail of which shall not exceed one foot in width. On any such scow or boat its name or number and owner's name painted in letters and numbers, at least fourteen inches long on both ends of such scow or boat, shall be a compliance with the provisions of the said section in regard to name, number, and owner's name. Approved, February 16, 1909. 1.30d (1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES H.R. REP. No. 2102, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909) AMENDING LAWS RELATING TO NAVIGATION FEBRUARY 9, 1909.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. CALDER, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 27970.] The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 27970) to amend section 8 of the act approved May 28, 1908, entitled "An act to amend the laws relating to navigation, and for other purposes," having considered the same, report the following substitute and recommend that it do pass: That the requirements in regard to life line or rope contained in section eight of the act approved May twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred and eight (being chapter two hundred and twelve of the Statutes at Large, first session Sixtieth Congress), entitled "An act to amend the laws relating to navigation, and for other purposes," shall not apply to any scow or boat the deck outside the coaming or rail of which shall not exceed one foot in width. On any such scow or boat its name or number and owner's name painted in letters and numbers, at least fourteen inches long, on both ends of such scow or boat shall be a compliance with the provisions of the said section in regard to name, number, and owner's name. This bill applies exclusively to scows or boats operated in New York Harbor and seeks to permit the owners of these scows to place their name and number on the ends rather than the sides, and eliminates from the operation of the law flat-deck scows or boats, in so far as it applies to the life line or rope. These flat-deck scows and boats rarely go outside of the landlocked harbor, and the way in which they are loaded renders the life line or rope not only impracticable, but absolutely useless, and even dangerous. This bill is recommended by the Chief of Engineers of the War Department and the supervisor of the port of New York 1.30d (2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 43 (1909): 1.30d (2) (a) Feb. 10: Amended and passed House, p. 2149 [No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section] 1.30d (2)(b) Feb. 11: Passed Senate, pp. 2195-2196 [No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section] 1.30e REPEALING CERTAIN OBSOLETE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE NAVAL SERVICE To amend section 5 of the Act of June 29, 1888, relating to the office of Supervisor of New York Harbor. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 of the Act entitled "An Act to prevent obstructive and injurious deposits within the harbor and adjacent waters of New York City, by dumping or otherwise, and to punish and prevent such offenses", approved June 29, 1888, as amended (33 U. S. C. 451), is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 5. That an officer of the Corps of Engineers shall be designated by the Secretary of the Army as supervisor of the harbor, to New York Har bor, supervisor. 25 Stat. 210. act under the direction of the Chief of Engineers in enforcing the provisions of this Act, and in detecting offenders against the same. This officer shall have personal charge and supervision under the Chief of Engineers, and shall direct the patrol boats and other means to detect and bring to punishment offenders against the provisions of this Act." 1.30f(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AMENDING SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1888, RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF SUPERVISOR OF NEW YORK HARBOR JUNE 20, 1952.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. BUCKLEY, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 8234] The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8234) to amend section 5 of the act of June 29, 1888, relating to the office of supervisor of New York Harbor, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The act of June 29, 1888, referred to in this bill, is now enforced by a line officer of the Navy under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, and the purpose of H. R. 8234 is to eliminate the need for assignment of a Navy officer by adding the responsibility of enforcement to the present duties of the district engineer at New York. The Department of Defense has requested the enactment of this. legislation and in support thereof has submitted a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, advising that this proposal is a part of the Department of Defense legislative program for 1952 and has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. No expenditure of Federal funds is involved in this bill. The comments of the Department of Defense are contained in the following communication: |