« PreviousContinue »
pleted. Even after the completion of the seaway, as a matter of reasonable practical possibility, except for the Aquarama, there does not seem to be any likelihood of any of these ships being transferred to use on the oceans.
If hearings on the measure confirm our understanding of the circumstances, it does not seem inequitable to remove the trading restructions imposed on these six vessels by Public Law 856, 81st Congress, and the contracts executed thereunder; and the Department, therefore, has no objection to favorable consideration of the bill.
We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Washington, D.C., May 18, 1959.
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 4002, a bill to authorize the use of Great Lakes vessels on the oceans, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Depart
ment of Defense.
Under the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, as amended, vessels purchased from the United States for use on the Great Lakes were limited in their operation and use exclusively to the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River and Gulf, and their connecting waterways. Heretofore, this restriction was meaningless as these vessels had no exit to the high seas. With the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the picture is changed and these vessels will have easy access to the Atlantic Ocean. This bill is intended to give such vessels the right to operate on the oceans and could result in additional applications for operating differential subsidies from the Maritime Administration. As this subject is primarily the interest of the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Navy on behalf of the Department of Defense defers to the views of the Department of Commerce on H.R. 4002.
This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Department of the Navy has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report on H.R. 4002 to the Congress.
JOHN S. MCCAIN, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Legislative Liaison
(For the Secretary of the Navy).
86TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session
REPORT No. 653
CLARIFYING A PROVISION IN THE BLACK BASS ACT RELATING TO THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FISH
JULY 14, 1959.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. BONNER, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries submitted the following
[To accompany H.R. 5854]
The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5854) to clarify a provision in the Black Bass Act relating to the interstate transportation of fish, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill is to clarify the provisions of the Black Bass Act relating to interstate transportation of fish.
The original Black Bass Act was passed May 20, 1926, and was designed to aid the States in the conservation of Black Bass. The act in its present form authorizes the interstate shipment of live fish and eggs for breeding or stocking purposes. Under the law at the present time there is no requirement that the taking of the fish or eggs must be lawful. The amendment would make it clear that only lawfully taken fish or eggs could be shipped in interstate commerce.
The committee recommends the enactment of this bill in the interest of clarifying the act.
The executive communication from the Department of the Interior and the report of the Department of Justice on the bill are as follows: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Hon. SAM RAYBURN,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington 25, D.C., March 6, 1959.
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington 25, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed herewith is a draft of a proposed bill to clarify a provision in the Black Bass Act relating to the interstate transportation of fish, and for other purposes.
We recommend that this proposed bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, and that it be enacted.
Revision of section 9 of the so-called Black Bass Act is desirable, in our opinion, to resolve a question that has arisen concerning the intent of that section. Our revision would result in the addition of language that would make it clear that only the shipment of legally taken fish is contemplated thereunder. While we believe the general intent of the act is clear, in at least one case that has come to our attention, the court has expressed the view that a strict interpretation of the section does not make such a requirement. In the circumstances, we believe that a revision of this section of the act would be desirable.
We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this proposed legislation to the Congress.
(Signed) Ross LEFFLER, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., May 5, 1959.
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning the bill (H.R. 5854) to clarify a provision in the Black Bass Act relating to the interstate transportation of fish, and for other purposes.
The basic legislation, the Black Bass Act of May 20, 1926, was intended to aid in the conservation of black bass by assisting the enforcement of State statutes which prohibit the taking of bass commercially. To aid further in the general conservation of black bass, it was recognized that live fish and fish eggs should continue to be shipped in interstate commerce for breeding or stocking purposes. Therefore, the following provisions was enacted to limit the application of the general law:
"SEC. 9. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the shipment in interstate commerce of live fish and eggs for breeding or stocking purposes."
It was apparently the intent of the legislation that the exception provided by section 9 should apply only to those fish and eggs which
had been taken in accordance with the applicable State statutes, but the section does not in terms so provide. The bill adds a clause to section 9 so as to make the intent clear.
The Department of Justice has no objection to the enactment of the bill.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report.
LAWRENCE E. Walsh,
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as introduced, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
61 STAT. 517, CH. 348 (16 U.S.C. 855)
AN ACT To regulate the interstate transportation of black bass and other game fish, and for other purposes
[SEC. 9. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the shipment in interstate commerce of live fish and eggs for breeding or stocking purposes.]
SEC. 9. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the shipment in interstate commerce of any fish or eggs for breeding or stocking purposes if they were caught, taken, sold, purchased, possessed, or transported in accordance with the law of the State, the District of Columbia, or Territory in which they were caught, taken, sold, purchased, possessed, or transported.