Mr. EKDALE. That is correct, I have a list of them here, with the history of each one.

Mr. WELCH. And are owned by citizens of the United States? Mr. EKDALE. There are, I believe, not to exceed nine exceptions to that, of the so-called Monterey-San Francisco fleet. However, of the 15 vessels I have here that are owned in San Francisco, this is also true: During the statutory period of 5 years, I venture to say that there was not a one of those 15 vessels that at one time or another but what had, directly, if not indirectly, an alien interested in the vessel. They are not interested in that vessel from the point of view of ownership, but are interested in the vessel only from the point of view of having a job and securing a larger return for an equal amount of labor. But it does not make any difference who is the owner. As a matter of fact, this is what happens: Let us take a group of 10 men, each putting $2,000 into the vessel. The vessel is financed by the cannery and they undertake operations. We will say that 5 of those 10 men are not citizens. They might, among themselves, think it is a very foolish law and many times have had bad advice from counsel, from persons who have not studied the navigation laws, although I do not know but what they got just as good advice as from those who have; because it is quite a mess.

The CHAIRMAN. I will agree with you it is a mess.

Mr. EKDALE. They have been told, "Certainly, it is all right to put the title of that vessel in this man who is responsible for it." But watch what happens. As this group of 10 become citizens, with the exception of the Japs, the citizen who has the title in the first instance, when the vessel is bought, insists that all of the other men, as quickly as they become citizens, go down to the customs house and put their names on the title papers, because the fellow who has held the title to the boat does not want to take the responsibility of an owner. In other words, it is not of any benefit to own a vessel in the west coast fishing industry, and they want to stay away from it, and they insist, if they are interested in the ownership of the vessel, that that fact be shown on the customs house records. This system that has grown up through the nonpolicing of the last 43 years is the reason behind it. It should have been cured, but there are a lot of things to be taken into account as to whether the industry can survive a bill which says that the raw material can be taken only by citizens after a 6-year period. I personally do not feel that the industry can stand it. It is anyone's guess.

Mr. OLIVER. I understood you to say you more or less favor this legislation?

Mr. EKDALE. I am in favor of the principle. It is because of our southern California system that we have on the west coast. It is not that of New England; it is not that of the Gulf; it is not even that of San Francisco.

Mr. OLIVER. Do I understand you are opposed to it?

Mr. EKDALE. Again I tell you I do not know. As I tell you, the point of Americanizing the fleet is well taken, but what its effect is going to be on the industry is sheer guesswork.

Mr. OLIVER. You are interested in whether this method will prove practicable?

Mr. EKDALE. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the suggestion came from a Captain Kelley to make it 10 years and 10 percent of the crew.

Mr. EKDALE. I so understand.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course all of the Japanese boats are sampans? Mr. WELCH. They do not have that league of nations referred to by the witness, in southern California, operating out of San Francisco. They are nearly all, or perhaps 100 percent, descendants of Julius Caesar, and very good citizens, and there is no difficulty in financing their boats, or anything else.

Mr. EKDALE. That is generally true. I think this naturally follows, that it will only be a matter of just a very few years-I would say 3 years at the outside until the so-called Portuguese fleet, which is the tuna fleet operating out of San Diego, which has the large tuna clippers, will be 100 percent Americans. It is hard to find a case now where they are not wholly American.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that process may be going on somewhat along the New England coast. I do not know whether there are any representatives here now from the New England coast, but I know when we had up a somewhat similar bill 2 years ago, they were very much disturbed.

Mr. EKDALE. As I say, the tuna fleet is pretty well taking care of itself. In San Diego, San Pedro, and San Francisco, there are a number of Italians and Slavonians who have become citizens and they are gradually increasing and there are more and more of them. But coming back to the great list of vessels, I know in my heart those vessels are partly owned by aliens, but the most of those men will secure citizenship papers by the end of the year 1938, but are not yet citizens. But I think this-this is my own personal view, because I have had no opportunity to discuss this with my people that with the provisions and the rights granted to aliens under H. R. 8906, specifically the individual who, through improper advice, and more or less through custom, has documented his vessel, he is in a position where his vessel is. subject to forfeiture, even though at the present moment he may have corrected it, and yet the other alien goes free for 6 years. It does not appear to us fair.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to submit an amendment and suggestions with respect to that, are you?

Mr. EKDALE. I would like very much to do it. I have just a solitary thing more, and that is in relation to H. R. 8595. I took it from the discussion that took place here this morning that related wholly to whaling. There appears, however, to be a catch-all in that bill that would apparently extend it over into our bailiwick and have it cover sardines, pilchard, mackerel, and tuna. It seems to me it has

no application there at all.

The CHAIRMAN. I think probably it would, under the same circumstances.

Mr. EKDALE. If this bill, in its present form, should become law, and if the west coast should suffer another season

The CHAIRMAN. Now, which bill?

Mr. EKDALE. H. R. 8906-if that should become law and if the west coast should suffer the same type of season that has just finished, I am afraid it would mean a loss to the individual boat owners, I should say, of a great deal. I am referring now to the people who are not covered by that bill, and that is the chaps who are now partly Americanized and have vessels under certificates of enrollment and license. I do not know quite what they are going to be able to do with

them. There are too many of them. "You cannot do that with Joe, because Tony says he has done that for years, and it is all right." It is going to have to be cured ultimately, I am afraid, by law. We cannot say what will happen to our industry, should a great number of vessels be thrown upon the market out there. The price, at the present moment, is higher than it has ever been. And in that connection, I may tell the committee there are almost 1,000,000 cases of tuna on hand, and it is the highest figure it has ever reached, and there has been a choice in the industry of closing down, or of reducing the price, or just taking a chance and letting it run in the hope that business will again come back to where it was a few short months ago, and they have taken the latter course.

If they are now faced with the necessity of backing up those fishermen on fines and penalties, whatever they may be, or shuffling about to buy up all those vessels, a price increase would start immediately. I do not know whether the industry is concerned with that, or not. I wish the committee, however, would consider the two points I made, namely, that the whole bill should be restricted to the whale fishery, unless it can be pointed out to us how it would fit into our industry and, secondly, to give us an equal break to do the job, as we have tried to do right along and as we are trying to do right along.

Mr. WELCH. Have you gentlemen, engaged in the fishing business on the west coast, made any estimate of the time it will take to fish yourselves out of business?

Mr. EKDALE. Insofar as tuna are concerned, we have discovered several new grounds for tuna. I do not know; I could not answer your question.

The CHAIRMAN. But you have been going further and further to sea to get them.

Mr. EKDALE. And bringing in better and better fish.

The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is a few years ago the testimony was they were caught very close to the coast, and they have had to extend the range, and now they have to go down to some island, to Galápagos Island, and they are going farther and farther off the coast all the time, just as they are with the pilchard?

Mr. EKDALE. That is true, because they are using larger and larger vessels. Three months ago there was a new vessel launched on the west coast of some 2,500 tons, a steel vessel, which is a large steel clipper, and the purpose of that vessel is to fish the year round in waters unmolested by storms, such as are found from Panama and slightly north. But we have enough troubles at the present time with the question of the interpretation of the navigation statutes and what Congress proposes now, without worrying about conservation. You first must have the vessels before you can take the tuna. The CHAIRMAN. I am not so sure but what you must first have the tuna, before you can take it with the vessels.

Mr. EKDALE. We first must have the fisherman with a boat, and then you must have the fish.

Mr. OLIVER. Are you subject to the operation of H. R. 8595?
The CHAIRMAN. What we call the Whaling Act?

Mr. EKDALE. I think not. I think I have had my say on that. Mr. OLIVER. In other words, as it is written now, you are not opposed to it?

Mr. EKDALE. I am not opposed to it, purely because I do not know the effect of it. Are we required to have a license to engage in the

tuna fishing, or mackerel fishing, or pilchard fishing? If that be the purpose of it, then we are opposed; otherwise, we have utterly no objection to it. As a matter of fact, we see a lot of merit in it.

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, he would have an opportunity to file a brief?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if he desires to do so.

Mr. VALLANCE. Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the witness put in the record a list of the vessels that are alien-owned, with the nationalities involved? I think that would be helpful.

Mr. EKDALE. Mr. Chairman, it so happens that I am a member of the bar and this information has been entrusted to me in the relation of attorney and client, and I am afraid I would not have the right, even though I should like, to divulge this information I have been given.

Mr. VALLANCE. Could there be some indications given of the nationalities involved?

Mr. EKDALE. Yes; I can do that very readily.

The CHAIRMAN. Insofar as you can supply the information, without a violation of the confidence that obtains between attorney and client, we will be very glad to have you do it, but we do not ask you to violate that confidence.

Is there anyone else?

FURTHER STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. SNOW

Mr. SNOW. In behalf of the American Fisheries Association, I would like to say that we concur in the provisions of H. R. 8906, as a general proposition. However, we do believe that certain amendments or changes will have to be made to take care of situations outlined by Mr. Ekdale, as affecting the Pacific coast fishermen; but we would like those amendments to be so framed that they would take care of that situation and not open the door to any increase in the alien-owned vessels operating in the coastal fisheries of the United States and more especially, of course, the Atlantic coast, where we do not have that problem at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. I will be very glad if you will consider the amendments you want added and then advise us what effect they may have, and what changes you desire.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to concur in and endorse Judge Snow's statement. I would like also to state at this time that there have been remarks made here about the capabilities of American yards building suitable killer boats. It is no great secret. We just heard a man tell here now, from the Pacific coast, about boats built there by American people. We now have yards, such as the Bath Iron Works, the Newport News Shipbuilding Co., and most any steel company, like the Bethlehem Steel Co. that have built successful trawlers, and the trawler is not anything much different from the killer boat. It is about the same size and practically the same design.

Another remark was made about what would be done with those boats, if they were not operated as whaleboats. Some gentleman on the other side, I believe, hesitated to say. But they can be converted right back into tankers again. When a mother ship is built-that is

a reduction ship-they are always built, so I am informed, so that they can be converted into tankers.

I think it is wrong to give the impression to you gentlemen here that the American shipyards cannot build a suitable killer boat. We heard Mr. Blake, representing the American Whaling Co. say he had an offer of $655,000 for the building of three American killer boats, although they chose to buy three where they could get them for $450,000.

Now I have been in the fishery business ever since I have been a boy, but I have not built any foreign ships and I have built plenty of ships. I have never been allowed to do it; never wanted to do it. I do not see where there is any excuse for anybody coming here and trying to tell you men that the United States of America cannot build suitable killer boats; because I have seen plenty of boats they have built that were suitable. And as I know something about what boats of that type are, what the requirements are probably not as much as these other gentlemen, but I am just American enough that I do not like to hear them say that our American yards cannot build suitable killer boats, when they turn out battleships and such craft as they do turn out successfully, and have turned out successfully.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, when we commenced to build battleships, I think when we built the old Texas, we had to get the plans from Great Britain.

Mr. HAYES. Well, we had one man here state-I want to repeat that again that he had an offer to build three American killer boats for $650,000. Still he chose to buy Norwegian boats for $450,000. Then he gets all of the other benefits that there are in this foreign country and we have to stay here and go to the shipyard and pay the bills, and employ American labor, and then we are also asked to let them enter their products as products of American fisheries. I cannot see the justice of it.

Mr. WELCH. What is the maximum length of a killer boat?

Mr. HAYES. They run anywhere from 125 to 160 feet. I think they are building them 150 and 160 feet now. It is not feat to build a killer boat, any more than a trawler, and the menhaden boats. We have menhaden boats now that are 180 feet long. We do not have any trouble building them; the trouble is finding the money to pay for them.

(The following brief was submitted for the record by Mr. Hayes:) BRIEF SUBMITTED BY CONSOLIDATED FISHERIES Co. OF LEWES, DEL., TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, ENDORSING ADOPTION OF H. R. 8595 TO LIMIT THE LICENSING OF VESSELS ENGAGED IN CATCHING, KILLING, OR PROCESSING WHALES, OR IN CATCHING, KILLING, OR PROCESSING OF OTHER AQUATIC PRODUCTS

We are engaged in the taking of menhaden fish in the Atlantic Ocean through the means of wholly American owned and built, repaired and enrolled steamships, entirely manned by American seamen, and the transportation of the catches of fish to our shore plant at Lewes, Del., which is also wholly American built and owned, where they are processed into two commodities, namely, American fish oil and American fish scrap and meal. This is a very old industry, having been established in this country well over 100 years ago.

Products: Fish oil is used mainly in connection with the manufacturing of soaps; fish scrap in connection with the manufacture of fertilizer; and fish meal in the feeding of cattle, swine, and poultry.

There are at present a total of 36 such plants, engaging about 135 vessels and employing between 5,000 and 6,000 men on the Atlantic coast. These plants

are well located in the least populated areas where other means of livelihood are