Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, CALIFORNIA-PROVIDING FOR

PAYMENT OF TOLLS

MONDAY, JULY 5, 1943

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to call, in the Capitol, Senator Hattie W. Caraway presiding.

Present: Senators Caraway (presiding), Radcliffe, McCarran, Burton, and Robertson.

Present also: Senator Downey; Representatives Lea, Welch, Rolph, and Johnson of California.

Senator CARAWAY (presiding). The committee will please come to order. We have for consideration this morning H. R. 2912, which will be made a part of the record.

(The bill under consideration, H. R. 2912, is as follows:)

[H. R. 2912, 78th Cong., 1st sess.]

AN ACT To authorize the charging of tolls for the passage or transit of Government traffic over the Golden Gate Bridge

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That tolls may be charged for the passage or transit over the Golden Gate Bridge of Government traffic, including military or naval personnel and their dependents and civilian employees of the Army and Navy traveling on Government business, but such tolls shall not be in excess of the tolls charged for the passage or transit of other traffic over such bridge: Provided, That any person belonging or attached to the military forces of the United States shall, together with his conveyance, personal baggage, and the military property of the United States in his charge, be allowed passage or transit over such bridge free of toll, if he presents an order for duty in the military forces of the United States which requires him in the performance of such duty to pass over such bridge.

Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 1943.
Attest:

SOUTH TRIMBLE, Clerk. Senator RADCLIFFE. We have had the benefit of the advice of some of those who had protested against this legislation. It will be very helpful to the committee in its effort to try to work it out. Invitations were extended, I believe, to various other people who are familiar with this matter, and I know it would be very helpful to the subcommittee which is making its report if we could hear from them this morning and hear their views on the subject.

Senator CARAWAY (presiding). From whom shall we hear first? Mr. Miles is here from the Post Office Department.

Senator RADCLIFFE. Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Guandolo are here. from the Federal Works Agency. Is anyone here from the War Department?

1

Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. Yes, sir.
Senator RADCLIFFE. What is your name?
Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. Friedlich.

Senator RADCLIFFE. I suggest we hear from Lieutenant Colonel Friedlich first.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. HERBERT A. FRIEDLICH, UNITED STATES ARMY

Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. My name is Herbert A. Friedlich, lieutenant colonel. I am in the office of the Under Secretary of War, detailed to the Judge Advocate General's Department.

Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I am speaking on behalf of the War Department, because the particular subject is within my sphere and perhaps knowledge. We have had a very short notice of this hearing, and we are not prepared to give you some of the data at this time. I will try to make it brief.

Senator MCCARRAN. Have you read the bill, Colonel?

Lieutenent Colonel FRIEDLICH. Yes, sir. Several times. I would like to give the general situation, then we would like to ask the committee's indulgence in giving us time to furnish further detailed information.

Senator MCCARRAN. When this matter came up before the House in January, a letter was written by the Army at that time expressing its opinion in regard to the situation. Did you make an investigation at that time?

Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. At that time, yes; as to how much the passage of the bill would cost us and what effect the passage of the bill would have.

Senator MCCARRAN. Please tell us how it would cost you anything, under the language of the bill at the present time.

Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. Senator, I am not sure I know what the language of the bill means; in the first place, the House Committee report, with which I am sure you are familiar, states that the bill on which the hearings were conducted and on which the War Department reported, proposed to abolish the toll-free privileges granted by the Secretary of War. The bill later passed by the House which is the bill now before this committee

Senator MCCARRAN (interposing). I think you are mistaken there. Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. I am talking, sir, about H. R. 2912, which is the bill now before this committee, as I understand it. Senator MCCARRAN. That is right.

Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. This is a report on H. R. 2912. The bill now before the House does not entirely abolish the toll-free privilege of conveyances and persons using the bridge in the performance of their duties for our military forces. Now, the bill starts out-well, in the first place, the title of the bill, which I am not contending as a lawyer governs the bill, but it may govern the construction, states that it is a bill authorizing the charging of tolls for the passage or transit of Government traffic over the Golden Gate Bridge. It then has a general provision that tolls may be charged for the passage or transit over the Golden Gate Bridge of Government traffic, including military or naval personnel and their dependents, and civilian employees of the Army and Navy traveling on Government business,

but such tolls shall not be in excess of the tolls charged for the passage or transit of other traffic over such bridge. Up to that point it abrogates and repeals the conditions of the permit granted by the Secretary of War before the bridge was built, and as a prerequisite to the building of the bridge, and changes entirely the existing situation. That is what, as I understand it, Senator, the former bill did. It stopped there. This bill now has a proviso and that is the part that I don't understand.

Senator MCCARRAN. What is it you don't understand?
Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. May I read it, sir?

Provided, That any person belonging or attached to the military forces of the United States shall, together with his conveyance, personal baggage, and the military property of the United States in his charge, be allowed passage or transit over such bridge free of toll, if he presents an order for duty in the military forces of the United States which requires him in the performance of such duty to pass over such bridge.

In answer to the Senator's question, I don't understand whether that means that the only people who can use the bridge without payment of toll charge are the military personnel moving from one place to another under orders requiring the use of the bridge or routed via the bridge and their personal baggage, and the military property of the United States in their charge, which might very well mean their rifles and uniforms, et cetera. I do not understand whether it is limited to that or whether it is intended, say, that a truckload of shells from the Presidio side, the south side of the bridge-I think the directions are generally north and south-from the south side of the bridge to some place in the north, Seattle or Portland or any such place, that that truckload will pass toll free. The proviso refers to conveyances and seems to be drawn with a view to covering personal automobiles carrying the man across. Now if the correct construction is that it only covers officers and men using their own cars, traveling under orders specifically requiring the use of the bridge, it cuts out not only Government traffic but any general Army and Navy traffic, and all trucks carrying war materials would pay toll. I am assuming that that is what the bill intends to do, to take away the right of the Government to ship Government traffic across that bridge, and I think the committee understands what I mean by Government traffic, all the things that the Army and Navy ship from one place to the other. If it does, that is a very serious proposition, for several reasons: One is that it will cost us money, and as I said at the beginning, I am not prepared to tell you how much money it would cost. I think, Senator McCarran, that answers your question.

Senator MCCARRAN. Well, it refers to military property of the United States. Aren't you putting a very restricted interpretation on it? Wouldn't these truckloads of shells you gave as an example be military property within the charge of a person belonging to or attached to the military forces of the United States?

Lieutenant Colonel FRIEDLICH. I think it would, Senator, except for two things. First, you take away all right to go across the bridge toll-free of Government traffic. That is what my "truckloads of shells" was intended to cover; Government traffic in general. You also refer to his conveyance. Furthermore, on any theory, if the United States Government went to the X trucking company in San Francisco and employed them to transport these shells, as we may

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »