« PrécédentContinuer »
Panama Line: Statement of tonnage handled for fiscal year ended June 30, 1953
NOTE.–Beginning with the departure of the steamship Ancon, Feb. 3, 1953, the Panama Line reentered
Panama Canal Company-Steamship Line operations: Comparative statement
of income and expenses for the years 1953-56
1 Annual depreciation on steamships was reduced starting in 1954 because of increase in estimated service lives from 25 to 35 years' adjusted prospectively. ? Reclassified to general corporate expense. The allocation of general and administrative expense has been discontinued.
MARCH 28, 1956. Mr. ROWLAND R. HUGHES, Director, Bureau of the Budget,
Executive Office Building, Washington, D. O. DEAR MR. HUGHES : In the report of the Bureau of the Budget study of Panama Canal operations, transmitted by the President to Congress on January 31, 1950, certain recommendations were made, among them, that responsibility for supervision of the Panama Canal and the Panama Railroad Company be transferred from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Commerce.
Have there been any further studies by the Bureau on the operations of the canal? Or has the Bureau at any time since this study was transmitted to the Congress revised or modified their recommendations regarding the transfer of these facilities to the Secretary of Commerce?
Your prompt reply would be appreciated, so that we might have the benefit of the Bureau's present thinking on the matter in the preparation of our committee report on S. 2167, to transfer administration of the Panama Canal to the Secretary of Commerce. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours,
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D. C., April 9, 1956. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will reply to your letter of March 28, 1956, concerning the Bureau of the Budget study of Panama Canal operations, which was transmitted by the President to the Congress on January 31, 1950. As you have indicated, the Bureau recommended at that time that responsibility for supervision of the Panama Canal agencies be transferred from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Commerce. President Truman specifically withheld approval of this recommendation and stated that he desired "to give further study to that recommendation, particularly in connection with plans to carry out the proposals of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government which are now under consideration."
The Bureau has examined the organization and operations of the Panama Canal Company and Canal Zone Government from time to time since 1950 as a part of its normal functions under the Budget and Accounting Act. It has not conducted any special studies of the type undertaken in 1949 and 1950 at the request of the Congress.
The Bureau's 1950 recommendation that supervision of the Panama Canal be transferred from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Commerce represented an attempt to deal with certain specific organization problems existing at that time. In January 1950 the Panama Canal was still operating under direct military control pursuant to a wartime executive order. The respective missions of the commanding general, Caribbean Command, and the Governor of the Canal Zone with respect to “protection” of the canal were not well defined, and the relationship of the Panama Canal agencies to the Department of the Army was also a subject of dispute. These problems have been substantially eliminated by the following actions taken since the Bureau's study was transmitted to the Congress :
1. The Executive order placing the Panama Canal under military control was revoked in February 1950.
2. The President by letter dated May 30, 1952, clarified the position of the Secretary of the Army with reference to the Panama Canal Company and Canal Zone Government. It was made clear that the Secretary of the Army was to act as the President's representative, not as head of the Department of the Army, in supervising the Panama Canal agencies.
3. Executive Order 10398 September 26, 1952, clarified the respective roles of the commanding general, Caribbean Command, and the Governor of the Canal Zone with respect to protection of the canal.
4. The Secretary of the Army now has a source of independent staff advice on Panama Canal matters in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (CMA) which did not exist in January 1950. In view of the above actions, the Bureau no longer favors transfer of supervision of the Panama Canal to the Secretary of Commerce. Present arrangements are believed to be those best calculated to assure necessary coordination of the peacetime operations of the Panama Canal with those of the military forces in the Canal Zone and to facilitate planning for the defense of the canal in time of war.
The primary concern of the Secretary of Commerce with the Panama Canal relates to the fixing of toll rates and the effect such rates may have on national transportation objectives. This Bureau is of the opinion that satisfactory arrangements can be developed which will provide essential coordination with respect to tolls policy without requiring any change in present supervisory responsibilities. Sincerely yours,
PERCIVAL BRUNDAGE, Director,
PACIFIC AMERICAN STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION,
San Francisco, Calif., March 30, 1956. Panama Canal: S. 2167, 84th Congress, letter of comment by Director, Adminis
trative Office, United States Courts Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: This refers to letter of comment by Mr. Harry P. Chandler, Director Admnistrative Office, United States Courts, which was read at the hearing before your committee on the above bill on March 20, 1956. I commented briefly on the points made in that letter, and at that time indicated that I would like to comment in more detail later.
Mr. Chandlers' letter made these points :
1. Venue Second district versus fifth district.-The letter stated that under 28 United States Code 41, the Canal Zone is a part of the fifth circuit, and not the second, and that for that reason any appellate matters growing out of section 411 of the Canal Zone Code should be handled in the fifth, not second circuit.