be built. If it were along the glide path for landing on runways, obviously, the area, if the job is going to be done properly, would have to be longer off the airport than the area in between the glide path. I mean, I do not think there is any yardstick you can lay down for it. Mr. BOREN. Is there any certainty that we will be able to fix such an area that would anticipate whatever future development we might have in the size of aircraft and length of runways, and that sort of thing? Mr. NICHOLS. Well, I think that that can be reached by placing in the hands either of the Administrator-and probably it would be the Administrator-power to regulate or Mr. BOREN (interposing). Lay down some rules? Mr. NICHOLS. That is right. Mr. BOREN. In other words, you would not recommend that the law exceeded the lines of broad general policies that are vested in the proper authorities? Mr. NICHOLS. I think it can only be very general in scope, and we can only be very general in legislation and then the authority to deal with specific cases must be delegated to somebody in the administrative branch, probably the Administrator. Mr. BOREN. If that policy were followed, then the legal rights of the landholders would naturally have recourse to the courts or court review for a complaint against the Administrator's decision or regulation, as the case might be. Mr. NICHOLS. Yes. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman- Mr. BROWN. I was very much interested in your statement that it was your personal idea or your thought-because after all legislation comes out of Congress really as the result of all of our personal opinions and thoughts-that there be no compensation connected with the prohibition of erecting structures on land adjoining airports. I am just wondering what you would do with a situation like we have at home right now where a small airport has been established for some time and has recently been greatly enlarged, the Government taking over the airport for glider training, and it is still being used for schooling purposes, too; but they did condemn the land that was added to the airport. Now, what is your idea about what would be the right of an individual who owned the land next to the airport, the portion which was condemned. Do you mean to say that he would not then be permitted to construct any building or that he would be compelled to tear down buildings already there, because of moving the line over closer to them? I mean, of course, without any compensation. Mr. NICHOLS. I do not want to argue the point. Mr. BROWN. It is not a matter of argument; it is a matter of policy. Mr. NICHOLS. This is the answer. Right now in all cities you have zoning laws. You have certain sections of town where you will not permit a house to be built that costs less than X dollars. You have other sections of town where you will not permit business property to be built. In the city of Washington you cannot build a building over a certain number of stories-I think eight stories-but that is the law. Now, you might say that that is taking away from somebody an in dividual right; that he ought to have a right to build a skyscraper 50 or 100 stories high if he wants to; but he cannot do it because of zoning laws. Now, I think that the same thing, if the law is properly written, could apply to an area around an airport. That could be done by a municipality and if the municipality refused to do it, if the proper authority is vested in the Federal Government, it is my thought that the Federal Government could say "this area can only be used for certain purposes, and you cannot put a structure here above a certain height." Mr. BROWN. Do you know of any zoning laws that are retroactive and apply to buildings already erected? Mr. NICHOLS. Oh, well, the gentleman misunderstood me. No, I do not, and I said in answer to a question of the chairman, I think that certainly that anything that is already there, if you are going to tear it down, you are surely going to have to pay for it, and properly so, and not only probably pay for the structure, but pay for some peculiar kind of damage. Mr. BROWN. Let me ask you this question. Now, let us suppose there is a limitation and no structure can be built within 1,000 feet we will say, as a matter of illustration, of an airport. And then they come along and enlarge the airport. Does that push that zone out that much further and somebody who was not affected at all before that was done suddenly has the rights in his property changed? Mr. NICHOLS. That might do it. It might do it. Mr. BROWN. Do you think that that would stand the test of the courts? Mr. NICHOLS. I do not know. I think if properly written Mr. BROWN. In other words, a man's property rights depend upon whether somebody else wants to change the airport lines, rather than what he wants to do. Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Brown, I will say this, unless there is something like this Mr. BROWN (interposing). I mean without compensation. I am thinking all of the time of compensation or condemnation in connection with this. Mr. NICHOLS. I think any time you expand your airport and you take away from a fellow some rights he already has-I mean if he has got to tear down a building, and so, you have certainly got to compensate him for it. Mr. BROWN. Well, he had a right to build a building there before the enlargement of the airport. Mr. NICHOLS (interposing). I do not think Mr. BROWN (continuing). Then they turn around and take away the right and say to him, "From now on, you cannot build on this property." Mr. NICHOLS. I want to go back Mr. BROWN. Then, what have they done to him? Mr. NICHOLS. I will go back again to my example of the municipality. When a municipality expands or extends their city limits, they impose new zoning regulations. People had rights before the city limits were expanded that when the new zoning regulations were passed they no longer have, and they are not entitled to compensation for it. Mr. BROWN. I think if you will read your court decisions on those particular cases, you will find that the basis for that ruling or that decision is upon the increased value in the property. Mr. NICHOLS. Upon what? Mr. BROWN. The increased value of the property. Mr. NICHOLS. Where you set out certain places in a city and say, "You cannot build business property here," very likely you are decreasing the value of that particular piece of property on which the business building would be constructed. Mr. BROWN. But that would decrease the residential property's value. Mr. NICHOLS. All right. Well anyway, Mr. Chairman Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. KENNEDY. As a result of the experience you acquired, Mr. Nichols, serving on this special committee, would you say after the consideration you made of the proposed bill, that it meets all of the problems that you found in existence in connection with it? Mr. NICHOLS. No. I would say that it misses it a long ways. Mr. KENNEDY. Well, would you say that it is sufficiently basic that we might improve it and, therefore, meet all of the obstacles entering into it now? Mr. NICHOLS. No, Mr. Kennedy. The problems confronting this industry are so great that this or no other committee now or any other time will ever be able to settle them all in one bill. I am sure of that. Mr. KENNEDY. Would you say that we have made a good start with this bill? Mr. NICHOLS. Oh, now then, I agree. I agree that it is a good start. Mr. O'HARA. What would you suggest should be added to this bill, Mr. Nichols? Mr. NICHOLS. Frankly, as I said, I was notified yesterday eveningI did not know that the committee was so close to closing hearingsand frankly I have been derelict, perhaps, but up to last night I have not had an opportunity to read this bill and I have not had an opportunity to study it. Now, I am not going to say to the committee that there should be something in here that is not in here or that there should be something left out that is in here. Mr. BULWINKLE. You said that it missed it a long ways. Mr. NICHOLS. I beg your pardon. Mr. BULWINKLE. You said that it missed it a long ways. Mr. BULWINKLE. Now, can you give us some of the ways in which it misses it? Mr. NICHOLS. Well, now, Major, of course I agree that the committee in its line of questioning that it has been asking of witnesses who have been appearing before it as to whether or not they can think of anything that can be added to this bill that would improve the situation Mr. BULWINKLE. I am not talking about everything. I am talking about something that is of vital importance that is missing. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, I think if you would take Mr. Lea's 17 points that recently appeared in the magazine American Aviation and add some of those to the bill which are not now in the bill, that in that way you would improve it. However-and this is only a personal opinion-I do not think-and this is not by way of criticism either-it is just a personal thought and a view I have had ever since I have been a member of this body. I am one of those who does not think that you can best legislate by omnibus bills. I am one of those who think the subjects which are big and important should be dealt with in individual bills. Mr. BULWINKLE. Let us just take that proposition. When we drafted the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, then you think it was a mistake at that time to have an omnibus bill? Mr. NICHOLS. Well, you were setting up a new agency then. You were setting up a new department of government. I do not know of anything that you could have left out of the 1938 bill that if you had left out, you would have gotten the desirable results. Mr. BULWINKLE. I am using that as an illustration. Mr. NICHOLS. Of course, Major, I do not think that was an omnibus bill. It was a single-purpose bill. The only purpose of the act of 1938 was the creation of a Civil Aeronautics Department. Mr. BULWINKLE. All right; but as a matter of fact from all intents and purposes it was an omnibus bill. Mr. NICHOLS. There is a difference of opinion, I would say. I certainly would not consider it an omnibus bill. Mr. BUIWINKLE. Because there are some things we could have done then that were left out, besides creating the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Mr. NICHOLS. That is right. Mr. HINSHAW. If you will permit, I had the honor as you know of sitting on the select committee investigating air accidents, and this subject of zoning struck the committee right off the bat as being one of the most important subjects that any committee could study. While we were engaged very largely in the conduct of accident investigations, and probably did not have the time, with our other duties to go into it completely, there is one aspect of it that was consistently brought to the committee and brought to me, and not being an attorney, perhaps I am not competent to discuss it as fully as someone else, but nevertheless I realized the importance of it. That is the possibility of invading the common law rights of the people in the zoning and it seemed to us, and I think the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] will agree, that when it comes down to zoning, while you can pass a law, if that law is contested many times in the courts, there may come a reaction on the part of the people if it is contested successfully, that would prevent the passage or adoption ultimately of a constitutional amendment to settle the question. There is no question but that the Constitution is written in such way that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the navigable waters, in interstate commerce. There is some question as to whether or not they can assume jurisdiction over the navigable air space, under the Constitution, and it seemed to us that any committee that was to investigate this subject should obtain the opinions of some of the best constitutional lawyers there are in the United States on that subject, for the simple reason, as I mentioned a moment ago, that if you bring a case to trial in the courts under an act passed by the Congress and that case receives great notoriety, there is enough antipathy on the part of a lot of people to having airplanes fly over their places, to cause serious reactions among the people, and if there was such a reaction the possibility of adopting a constitutional amendment to settle the question might be a very difficult thing. At the same time, everyone recognizes the high importance to the future of aviation as a means of transport that that thing be done, and it was my hope that this committee would give full and adequate consideration to that one question alone, before submitting a bill. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. KENNEDY. In your opening statement you emphasized the question of insurance. I did not get the full importance of that. I was wondering, did you contact the insurance companies about rates and things of that kind; what they were charging, and why they were charging so much? Mr. HINSHAW. Read the list of questions on the questionnaire. Mr. NICHOLS. Well, I think the best answer to that, Mr. Kennedy, is the questionnaire. Mr. KENNEDY. What was the background? I mean, the reasons for these questions? Mr. NICHOLS. Oh, because many States have no limitation on the amount of damages that can be recovered for death and others have a $10,000 limitation; and others have other limitations, and your insurance laws that apply to people who ride airplanes now are in 48 different jurisdictions. Mr. HINSHAW. May I anyswer that question there again, off the record? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hinshaw. (After informal discussion off the record, the following proceedings were had:) Mr. KENNEDY. Was it not the idea of your committee that the rates for insurance had an injurious effect upon or discouraged aircraft? Mr. HINSHAW. If I may continue briefly, it was not so much that there was a very great difficulty of recovering for a death or accident but Mr. KENNEDY (interposing). You mean, on fixing the liabilities? Mr. HINSHAW. That is right; fixing the liabilities and the recovery limit, whether the accident was the result of an act of God, whether the accident was the result of an act of God, or what it might be that caused that airplane crash. As you know the thing that happened out in Virginia was that a lightning storm was going on and it was probable that a bolt of lightning hit the front of that plane and demolished the instruments, or froze up the controls, or something. Now, if it is an act of God, nobody can collect. On the other hand, the man is perfectly dead. Mr. NICHOLS. Unless the law says something about it. Mr. HINSHAW. Unless there is some provision in the law to the effect that in any event recovery can be had for death. The committee studied that. |