Senator MCCLELLAN. That would carry with it only a discussion of the committee's viewpoint.

Senator BREWSTER. That is right.

Senator MCCLELLAN. So it would have no further force than that? Mr. HORNBECK. Yes. The gentlemen of the State Department did not even have sufficient respect, if I might say so, of this committee or Senator McCarran, I might add, for they executed this French agreement while this bill was pending.

Those are the things that I cannot understand.

Senator BREWSTER. Have you discussed with the chairman the form that such a resolution might take, Senator McClellan?

Senator MCCLELLAN. No; I have not discussed it with him. Senator BREWSTER. He apparently had rather definite ideas about the matter.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It strikes me that this committee might pass a resolution expressing its views, because that would have no more force, possibly, than any other resolution or expression of sentiment.

The question to me is this: These are treaties; we regard them as that, regardless of what the State Department named them. I mean, I do. I said "we."

Senator BREWSTER. Senator Bailey indicated that too.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes; but they are treating them as agreements that do not have to have Senate confirmation and ratification. They will continue to make them and operate under them.

Now, our real problem, and the problem of the Congress, is, if we think that is illegal and wrong, how to stop it.

Senator BREWSTER. Assuming that it is the subject matter of the treaty, the Senate would certainly have the power to declare that as one of the constitutional bodies. I think if this committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter were to formulate a resolution and present it to the Senate and have it adopted by the Senate, then if they should concur with us, it could not but have significance, certainly.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Then there would also have to be a meeting to transfer the jurisdiction of the matter to the Foreign Relations Committee, would there not?

Senator BREWSTER. They might well refer such a resolution to the Foreign Relations Committee, and we would go before them with the investigation that we have made of the matter, and explain to them as Senator Bailey and I did, you will remember, in connection with the pending proposed treaty, which they are treating as a treaty.

They did invite us down to present the point of view of the committee.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Aside from all these legal aspects of it, there is one thing that puzzles me in this; that is how we are going to combat the competition with this great differential in cost of operation, including wages. How are we going to successfully combat that kind of competition when we grant them privileges along the line of this agreement?

Mr. HORNBECK. Senator, both of my clients have gone on record several years ago. I think they were the first labor organizations to go before a committee here in the first McCarran bill advocating a

single-line policy. The single-flight policy and the unit-line policy, in their opinion, would be the only way to combat these foreign groups. Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, one flag line competing against foreign competition or foreign nations?

Mr. HORNBECK. That is all.

Senator BREWSTER. They would couple that, I assume, with the protection of the American traffic which we are originating by not granting complete freedom of operating conditions to foreign-flag lines. Mr. HORNBECK. I would assume so.

Senator BREWSTER. That would be implicit in the idea.

Mr. HORNBECK. That is right.

Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. Hornbeck, I was not here when you delivered your statement. I am sorry, but I had to be down on the floor.

But Senator McCarran's bill, S. 1814, of course, amends the Civil Aeronautics Act.

Is it your opinion, looking at the legal aspect of this matter, that the bill itself would probably not apply to nor correct the evils that you have stated?

Mr. HORNBECK. No, Senator; it would not.

Senator MAGNUSON. It is the State Department that makes these recommendations to the Board, as I uderstood the testimony. The State Department technically makes the agreement. The Civil Aeronautics Board, although it is there, sits in an advisory capacity. Therefore, amending the Civil Aeronautics Act would accomplish nothing insofar as they do not pretend to make the agreements, as such. The Board does not, as I understood their testimony.

Senator BREWSTER. I think the testimony of the State Department was, however, that arrogate to themselves the power to do this under the Civil Aeronautics Act. That is how they claim the authority. Senator MAGNUSON. I know. But regardless of how they claim it, the actual treaty is signed by the State Department.

Senator BREWSTER. The agreement, you mean?

Senator MAGNUSON. The agreement is signed by them.

Senator BREWSTER. Yes; but I think the only ground on which they base their claim is the Civil Aeronautics Act.

Senator MAGNUSON. It is the act itself?

Senator BREWSTER. They claim it on a couple sections there. Senator MAGNUSON. Then by the passage of the McCarran bill, it would be your opinion that the State Department then would not have a leg to stand on?

Senator BROOKS. They would not have this leg, anyhow.

Senator BREWSTER. That is right.

Senator BROOKS. I think it is a many-legged department.
Senator MAGNUSON. In lots of ways, that is true.

Senator BREWSTER. That is right.

Senator MAGNUSON. I want to ask you a question on your last statement, Mr. Hornbeck. You said after the McCarran bill was introduced, they went ahead. Of course, your conclusion is not particularly correct, because these departments, regardless of who they are, or regardless of what powers they assume, must assume those powers until the law is changed, because otherwise any time I did. not like something in the Department, if they followed out your

theory, I would just introduce a bill. There would be literally hundreds of them every day that would stop everything.

Mr. HORNBECK. Possibly if I were head of the Department I would have more effect on senatorial courtesy, too.

Senator MAGNUSON. I can assure you they do not.

Senator BREWSTER. The same thing developed on the Chicago agreements, of course.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Are there any further questions by any members of the committee of this witness?

(No response.)

Senator MCCLELLAN. We thank you, Mr. Hornbeck.

Mr. HORNBECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to you. Senator MCCLELLAN. Are there any other witnesses?

(No response.)

Senator MAGNUSON. Is this the full committee meeting now?
Senator BREWSTER. Yes.

Senator MAGNUSON. Could I bring up another matter, Mr. Chairman?

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes. After this has been considered, I believe it is the intention to adjourn subject to the call of the chairman, and let a further date be set.

Senator BREWSTER. Before anything else, would you discuss with Senator Bailey and give consideration to this matter of a resolution? Senator MCCLELLAN. Before the next meeting?

Senator BREWSTER. Yes; so that the committee might have something to consider at that time.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I shall be glad to discuss it with him, and maybe at that time we can get something before us.

Senator MAGNUSON. May I recite for one second what I want to say?

Senator MCCLELLAN. You may proceed.

Senator MAGNUSON. The scientific research bills, of which many are introduced, and reported to the committee, are the subject of this particular statement. One was sent here, the co-called Magnuson bill; and the Kilgore bill has been in the Military Affairs Committee. After months of testimony and conferences, we have agreed to this joint bill, to which about 17 Senators have their names.

Both joint bills were referred, one to the Commerce Committee, and the other to the Military Affairs Committee, because the hearings were conducted jointly. Then the legislative question arose as to which committee would report the bill out first.

The Military Affairs Committee has reported the bill out. It is on the Senate Calendar. And I would just like an informal agreement with the committee that I may have the privilege of sending a letter to the committee, now that the matter is on the calendar, to submit that same report here that they give out, for the record, and that would clear the matter here. There is no use of our having meetings here or passing it out when that has all been passed out on the same bill.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you want this committee just to adopt a motion or resolution?

Senator MAGNUSON. I think we will have to.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you want us to adopt the report of the Military Affairs Committee?

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes; I should like to have you adopt the report of the Military Affairs Committee. I will see that every member gets

a copy.

You may have some objections that you want to raise to it; but it is hanging fire here.

Senator BREWSTER. I do not think that we would want to adopt a report on this.

Senator MAGNUSON. I wanted to know whether I might have the privilege of submitting to the members of the committee the report of the Military Affairs Committee; and then the members of the committee, if they disagree with it, can change it.

There is a minority report, too, incidentally.

Senator BREWSTER. I misunderstood your request. I thought you were going to submit a minority report to the Senate on behalf of the committee.

Senator MAGNUSON. No.

Senator BREWSTER. You want to submit it to the committee for consideration?

Senator MAGNUSON. I want to move this a step further along in this committee.

Senator BREWSTER. What is the step?

Senator MAGNUSON. The step is now to give every member of the committee a copy of the Military Affairs Committee report, and then after they read it, at the next full committee meeting, we might vote on it.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, you are trying to get us informed about it, so that you may present it and get committee action on it, say, at the next meeting?

Senator MAGNUSON. That is right.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I see no objection to that.

Senator BREWSTER. That does not constitute any action of the committee, really.

Senator MAGNUSON. No. I appreciate that.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Without objection, then, that request is granted, if granting is necessary. Personally, I do not think it is. Senator MAGNUSON. I merely wanted to tell the committee what is going on, and have it in the record.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Very well.

The committee is adjourned subject to call.

(Whereupon, at 3:25 p. m., the committee adjourned subject to

call.)

CIVIL AVIATION AGREEMENTS

FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1946

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:35 a. m., in the committee room, Capitol, Senator John H. Overton presiding.

Present: Senators Overton, Radcliffe, McClellan, Gossett, Brew

ster, Cordon, Brooks, Hart.

Senator OVERTON. The committee will be in order.

Good morning, Judge Fletcher.

Judge FLETCHER. Good morning, Senator.

Senator OVERTON. Will you take a seat right there, sir.

Judge, I understand that you wish to make a statement.

Judge FLETCHER. A very brief one, sir.

Senator OVERTON. You may proceed, Judge.

STATEMENT BY JUDGE R. V. FLETCHER, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Judge FLETCHER. My name is R. V. Fletcher, and I am a lawyer. I live in Washington, and I am vice president of the Association of American Railroads.

Senator OVERTON. And you are representing that association here? Judge FLETCHER. Representing class I railroads of the United States. I am sorry that demands upon my time have been such that I haven't been able to prepare a written statement.

I want to disclaim any special knowledge of air problems. I appear here only to say

Senator OVERTON. That is all right.

Judge FLETCHER. Just to say a few words on behalf of the railroads which I represent; and I am spokesman for no other people except the railroads of the United States.

The Association of American Railroads represents, I should say, about 95 percent in number of the railroads of the United States, class I railroads of the United States, and the road members of the association handle, I suppose, about 98 percent of the total traffic that moves by rail in the United States.

The class I railroad, Senators, as you no doubt know, is a railroad that is so classified by the Interstate Commerce Commission as having gross revenues of as much as a million dollars a year. The railroads that do not have that amount of revenue are classified as class II, III, IV, and switching lines.

281