Mr. O'HARA. Then you are also subject to some supervision on the part of the Postmaster General in regard to the mail that is carried?

Mr. POGUE. Well, I would not say that we are subject to any such regulation, Congressman. He has certain jurisdiction in connection with the mails. He can call for a new route to be establish and he can require the carrier to carry mail, but we have the power to fix the maximum loads if that becomes acute.

Mr. O'HARA. In what way does the Secretary of Commerce exercise any jurisdiction over your Board?

Mr. POGUE. Under the reorganization plan, the Secretary provides for us what are called "housekeeping" functions.

Mr. O'HARA. What about the Bureau of the Budget? Do you not have to submit to the Budget some of your items for examination by the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. POGUE. No. The detail of the Budget, principally paper work, and the furnishing of supplies and that sort of thing, are supposed to be done by the Secretary of Commerce; but discretionary matters with respect to the Budget and actual presentation of the Budget is in the Board. That is, the Board determines how much money it needs and the Secretary has no control over its decision.

Mr. O'HARA. So far as your functions are concerned, as to the operations of air lines, and the fixing of tariffs, is that a matter solely within your jurisdiction?

Mr. POGUE. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. No one exercises any control over you in that connection?

Mr. POGUE. No.

Mr. O'HARA. And the fixing of tariffs and rates and schedules; regulations; the Interstate Commerce Commission exercises no control?

Mr. POGUE. No.

Mr. O'HARA. Over your Board?

Mr. POGUE. Not at all.

Mr. O'HARA. Then, so far as your Board is concerned, it is an independent body insofar as the Department of Commerce is concerned, except as you have outlined, or so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, and in no way does the Interstate Commerce Commission interfere with your rate-fixing or regulatory powers? Mr. POGUE. That is correct.

Mr. O'HARA. Is that consistent with the Transportation Act of 1940 dealing with other modes of transportation?

Mr. POGUE. Well, I wish I could answer that, but I do not believe at the moment I am sufficiently refreshed on that act to answer that. Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. The Transportation Act of 1940 laid down the broad general principles that a national coordinated system of transportation was in the public interest and the national interest. Beyond that point there was no attempt to unify or consolidate the administration of the various agencies of transportation. That act simply declared that as a national policy transportation should be looked at as to its complete application to our Nation.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, in the matter of your commission, in the matter of fixing tariffs and rates and schedules, what, if any, consideration is given to competing carriers such as water, railroads, trucks, busses, and so forth?

Mr. POGUE. Well, up to now, Congressman, it has not been very much of a problem with us, because both the passenger rates on air lines and the express rates have been higher than the competing carriers. Also, up to recent months, all of the carriers needed some governmental mail compensation to permit them to break even and make a reasonable profit. So that our major problem was how much mail compensation they should receive.

Mr. O'HARA. As a matter of fact, it is true, is it not, that generally speaking it has been necessary to subsidize aerial navigation by a subsidy through the Post Office Department or otherwise? that not true?

Is

Mr. POGUE. Yes; up until recently, but beginning about 3 months ago, or 4, the Board has issued a very substantial number of ratecase opinions and show-cause orders which recognize that the carriers involved have passed out of that need class.

Mr. O'HARA. They are self-sustaining, so far as their income and revenue is concerned; is that true?

Mr. POGUE. Yes; that is the fact.

Mr. O'HARA. What consideration has been given to the proposition in the development of aerial navigation as to discriminatory rates as compared to other competing lines of transportation, whether it be express, freight, or passenger?

Mr. POGUE. The air line rates have been so much higher, particularly in the express field, that there has never been any problem of discrimination against the air lines by any other form of transportation up to now.

Mr. O'HARA. That is up to this present time, I understand that is the situation.

Mr. POGUE. But I should say that the time is rapidly approaching when there may be some action with respect to the passenger rate levels, and if there is some, then the question you asked may become active.

Mr. O'HARA. I should like to call your attention to the bill H. R. 1012. There are in the bill, on page 6, section 2, functions under the heading of "Findings and declaration of policy"; and then, on page 2, there is a section on post-war planning, and I think in several places throughout the bill there are perhaps more matters of declaration of policy than are contained merely in the section under that heading, "Findings and declaration of policy."

Now, also on page 15, section 3101, "Administrator's powers,” it would of course follow that under the declaration of policy contained in this bill, H. R. 1012, the Administrator would be the court that would determine what those directions of policy are. Is that not true?

Mr. POGUE. So far as his functions are concerned, I should suppose he would be bound by those policies, and expected to carry them out. Mr. O'HARA. And as to the functions-are you familiar with the functions and declarations of policy; have you studied them to any extent? I do not want to embarrass you if you have not had a chance to do so. I know that I have not had much chance to study them.

Mr. POGUE. We have not taken a position on them, Congressman, and have not studied them in detail.

Mr. O'HARA. Is it your position that with reference to various sections of the bill, for example, judicial reviews of orders made by the Administrator or by the Board, would be subject to review? There is a provision in section 3106, page 19, that provides for a review by the Federal courts. Would you feel that any order made by the Board or by the Administrator should be subject to review by the courts?

Mr. POGUE. Yes; the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 provides for judicial review and the section you refer to appears to provide judicial review. We think that is proper.

Mr. O'HARA. There is also a provision, I think, in section 3107, subsection (b), for a judicial review with reference to the title of compensation. I presume that was intended to apply to compensation of employees of the air lines. It is not plain to me just what is intended by that.

Mr. POGUE. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to testify on that, Congressman. I would certainly be delighted to answer your question after I have had a chance to consider it.

Mr. O'HARA. Have you any further expression with reference to subsection (a) of section 417, which deals with declaratory orders? I presume, Mr. Chairman, that that is declaratory orders issued by the Administrator himself and not referring to declaratory orders of the courts.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We will have those provisions discussed in detail later in the hearings.

Mr. O'HARA. Now, I was interested in the comments you made yesterday in which you stated that you felt that the Civil Aeronautics Authority should have complete control over all traffic by air. I do not know whether those were your exact words, but that, as I understood, is your view, that the Civil Aeronautics Authority should control all air transportation aside from the military, of course, whether it was interstate or intrastate, and I think you cited a Federal court opinion wherein one of the circuit courts of appeals had held that, or sustained your views in that regard in a case where a flyer or an airplane operator operated solely within one State.

That, of course, might be in the opinion of some people a rather serious invasion of State rights. I would like to have you amplify your statement if you care to do so, because I am still recognized as one of these old-fashioned people who feel that the States do have some rights left, which I thing should be maintained.

Now, for what reason, or reasons, assuming you have a carrier that operates solely within the State of Minnesota, for example, and perhaps has separate fields that are not used by other air companies, why should that carrier be subject to Federal supervision in the operation of his plane or planes.

I would like to hear from you on that.

Mr. POGUE. I am glad you asked me to say something about that. In the safety field, as I indicated yesterday, it is rare that you find any substantial volume of activity in the air that does not cross the State line. The airplanes are so fast that it is just the rule that trips are of substantial length, so that you have interstate traffic as the predominant feature of flying.

The Federal airways, which are 20 miles wide, crisscross the United States and occupy a surprisingly large proportion of the entire area of the country, as you would see if you should draw the lines and then figure out what the area is.

As the court indicated in the Rosenham case, the Civil Aeronautics Act is drawn on the theory that activity which may endanger any of the traffic which is interstate in nature, or which is on the airways set up for interstate travel, is a proper subject for Federal regulation. For example, if there is no uniform regulation you do not know what the fellow operating under State authorization or none at all may do. You do not know whether he is operating at altitudes which will miss yours; you do not know what he will do if he gets lost in the clouds. He may be operating without adequate radio. There may be no means of contacting him and interstate operations whether on the airways or otherwise are just at his mercy.

So it seems essential to have some uniform regulation applicable to all operations if your interstate operations are to have any substantial degree of safety.

That was on the safety side.

Mr. O'HARA. Permit me to say that I recognize that there is a lot of argument for your proposition; but on the other hand, do you know of any common carrier, whether operating in interstate or intrastate commerce, that is not also subject to State regulation while operating within that State?

Mr. POGUE. Well, no, I do not think I do, to a greater or less degree; but I think it is fair to comment in that connection on the fact that I do not believe any other carrier has the same safety problems that aviation has, because they operate either on tracks or on roads, and you can get at them with cops or regulate them, if they are acting ununreasonably, and if they get lost, it is not a serious problem.

Mr. WINTER. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. O'HARA. Yes.

Mr. WINTER. Is it not a fact, where interstate commerce is concerned, that if the Congress passes a law regulating interstate commerce, and if the State laws are in conflict, that the State laws of necessity have to bow to the Federal law?

Mr. O'HARA. I think to some extent, yes, that that is true.

Mr. HINSHAW. Navigable streams certainly come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government in every operation.

Mr. POGUE. That is true; and most of that applies also in the economic field that I was going to come to next, I would like to give as an illustration or two some experiences we have had in that field.

Mr. O'HARA. I am dealing now with regulation of an airplane operating solely within a State. At least there must be some of those instances, where the plane is operating within the States, and I was wondering how far we were going to go as to the invasion of States' rights in regard to our control of aviation, where the operator operates solely within the State. I think we are approaching a very grave constitutional question in that regard.

Mr. POGUE. Well, it is a very important question. I believe I am quite right in saying though, Congressman, that the State aviation officials have been consistently very cooperative with this idea of having uniformity of regulation and of having Federal regulation.

When the national emergency became critical a year ago last fail, approximately that time, it became necessary to require a Federal certificate for everybody

Mr. O'HARA. I have no complaint as to that.

Mr. POGUE. And there was no complaint by anyone.

Mr. O'HARA. I am merely talking about peacetime conditions, operation of any common carrier solely within the boundaries of a State. Mr. POGUE. I certainly am not opposed to the principle that you voice at all, and I do not think any member of the Board is.

In this case it is a question, it seems to me, of looking at a factual situation which is, I believe, different from any other factual situation so far as State-Federal relationship is concerned, because the facts are such as to make safety, with which we have been dealing, something that the Federal Government must control if there is to be safety.

Now, if I may move on to that other field, you raised a question about, I would like to talk about that for just a little bit.

Mr. O'HARA. Pardon me before you do that. If I could ask one question, then I think I am through.

Mr. POGUE. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. It is my understanding that under section 3106, Mr. Chairman, that the judicial review of zoning orders only are reviewable by a court.

Now, what is the situation so far as any orders issued by the Civil Aeronautics Authority are concerned? Are they subject to review by the Federal courts as to both their reasonableness as well as to the legal effect which the orders may have?

The CHAIRMAN. As I recall they have a general review, in connection with raising the question as to whether there is substantial evidence which will justify the findings or the regulation.

I will say that we will have these various phases discussed here, various sections one by one, before the hearings are over. We will have them discussed from a legal standpoint.

Mr. O'HARA. The reason I raise this point is, for one, Mr. Chairman, I am very much interested in seeing that we have the right of review as to the acts of any board. I am not particularly speaking of this one or such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, or any other, but there has been considerable complaint about the inability in many instances of the right of review; that review is denied, or that the provisions are so elaborate and it is so expensive under the conditions that exist, that I think there should be some more simplified method providing for a review and an appeal by the parties interested and I merely wished to make my views clear in regard to this bill as to any orders made by the Civil Aeronautics Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I appreciate your interest in that question. I have been interested in the same angle for several years. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Pogue, I notice with some satisfaction your comments and your remarks in connection with the Chair's statement, as to the national program for civil aviation which this committee laid down in 1938, and the observations which you made thereto.