covered in the present Weichel Act. If there is any doubt of this fact, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission recommends that amendments be made to the Weichel Act to include lobster specifically and to extend the application of that law to foreign commerce. Respectfully submitted by order of the chairman. DEAR SIR: Relative to bill S. 237 defining "lobster" and preventing other forms of seafood under this name of lobster from being sold as such. The present law is very specific in this respect defining imports as rock lobster or rock lobster tails, which are a distinct specie and always referred to as rock lobster. Considerable sums of money have been spent over the past 10 years in advertising the rock lobster tails. So the consumer has a complete knowledge of the rock lobster through this advertising and in no manner do rock lobster infringe on the Maine lobster. Furthermore, rock lobster tails are always sold in the frozen state, while the Maine lobster is sold in the fresh and without dissecting any part of said lobster. Therefore, I request that you and your committee refrain from changing the present law, which is adequate and protection for all concerned. Very truly yours, E. R. JOHNSON. WOUKA DISTRIBUTING CO., INC., Re Senate bill S. 237. CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, HONORABLE SIR: It has been called to my attention that subject bill is under present consideration. I am particularly concerned with the requirements that would essentially make it impossible for us to continue in business with the phrase "rock lobster tails" applying to the product that we, and many other companies in similar circumstances, sell. I am surprised that this legislation is offered, because it is my experience in the field of merchandising frozen South African rock lobster tails, for over 20 years, that the frozen South African rock lobster tails do not compete at all with any American lobster. You may not be aware of the fact that our product sells to a large degree in the Midwest and other inland communities where fresh lobsters cannot be marketed economically because of the high degree of perishability. It is entirely conceivable that a small restaurant in the middle of Nebraska or Colorado can offer the South African rock lobster tails on its menu at all times, whereas it could not handle the live American lobster. This does not mean that the frozen South African rock lobster tail is replacing the American lobster. It means that the frozen product can be marketed where the fresh product cannot. In addition to the above, you should be informed of the fact that the American lobster industry has been able to merchandise all of its products. At no time has there been a surplus of American lobsters, attributable to the presence of rock lobster tails, nor has the price of American lobsters been decreased by the availability of the frozen South African product. As a matter of fact, on a per-pound basis, the frozen product is more expensive. Therefore, since the two products are not competitive, and since the American lobster industry has as wide a market as is required, being able to merchandise all of its products, it is entirely unreasonable to want the rock lobster tail name changed. Forcing a change of the name of "rock lobster tails" will undermine industries, such as the one with which I am associated, which gives sustenance to hundreds of Americans, and not aid one iota any other existing American industry. It is not in keeping with the reputation for fairmindedness and justice on the part of your committee to have this legislation recommended by you. Therefore, we urgently request you not to support this bill. Very truly yours, VICTOR WOUK, President. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Senator WARREN MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the several bills relating to lobsters (the Payne bill, S. 237, and companion bills H. R. 2425, H. R. 2464, and H. R. 3023 by Congressmen Hale, McIntire, and Coffin, all of Maine). On the basis of our present information we find no need for the legislation at least in its present form with one exception. Title 1, in substance, is an attempt to establish a minimum legal length of lobsters (Homarus americanus) at 36 inches (carapace measure) as a national policy, while at the same time reserving to the individual lobster-producing States the right to deal internally with their own lobster industry as they may see fit. Massachusetts may well agree that a uniform legal length for all lobsters, wherever caught or taken, might be universally desirable. However, we do not agree that such minimum length should be set at 3/16 inches. Without commitment Massachusetts might take a somewhat different view if the minimum length was to be 33/16 inches. Another objection which might be considered is the possibility of difficulty in enforcement arising from the conflicting, concurrent, or overlapping of authority or jurisdiction of two sovereigns. For the foregoing reasons, together with the fact that this State is not presently aware of any particular problem concerning the interstate shipment of lobsters which have been illegally caught or taken, and for other reasons title 1 is objectionable to the interests of the Commonwealth and would not receive our support. The exception to which I referred above deals with title 2. Title 2 defines lobster as that species of decapod crustacea commonly known as Homarus americanus. We agree with all other lobster-producing States that this part of the legislation will be beneficial to all such States, including Massachusetts. It is the consensus of the States producing Homarus americanus that the North Atlantic lobster will never be equaled by any of the competing substitutes. We are aware of the increasing importation and use of crawfish in its many varieties and voice no objection to the sale of those products as crawfish. However, to permit the word "lobster" to be used in connection with the advertising and marketing of what is generally considered by lobster lovers as an inferior substitute would subject the true lobster, Homarus americanus, to unfair, if not deliberately fraudulent, competition. For these reasons we would support title 2 of the legislation. I trust that this information will prove useful when these matters come up for consideration. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS W. SARGENT, Commissioner. Department oF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request for a report on S. 237, a bill to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the term "lobster" for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The bill consists of two titles. Title I, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, would (for the purposes of that title) define the term "lobster" as meaning the crustacean Homarus americanus. It would (1) in effect extend to such lobster the provisions of certain Federal laws (16 U. S. C. 851 et seq.) regulating the interstate shipment of fish in aid of the enforcement of State conservation laws, and (2) prohibit importation or interstate shipment of such lobsters if less than 316 inches long. On this part of the bill we defer to the views of other departments and agencies primarily concerned, in particular the Departments of the Interior, State, and Commerce, though our comments on the definition of the term "lobster" as used in title II may also be of interest in connection with the definition in title I. Title II (sec. 201) of the bill would, for the purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, also define the term "lobster." This definition, which is similar to but an expansion of that set forth in title I, is very restrictive and would permit the word "lobster" to be used only as the common and usual name of the crustacean Homarus americanus. It would prohibit use of the term "lobster," whether qualified or not, as a part of the common or usual name of any other species of the family Homaridae or other families of crustaceans. It would, therefore, prohibit the use of such terms as rock lobster, spiny lobster, and red lobster, in the marketing of crustaceans, other than Homarus americanus, which are presently commonly found on the market. We believe that the American consumer presently understands the terms "lobster" in different senses, depending on whether it is qualified by some other term. When the term "lobster" is not qualified he understands it to refer to the crustacean scientifically known as Homarus americanus (American lobster); and when the term "lobster" is preceded by some qualification (e. g., rock, spiny, etc.), he understands it to refer to a crustacean of some other genus, species, or family. This understanding is supported by the definition for lobster which appears in Webster's New International Dictionary, unabridged, second edition, 1955, which indicates that the term "lobster," sometimes qualified, is applied to Homarus vulgaris, Nephrops norvegicus, Palinurus vulgaris, Palinurus argus, and Palinurus lalandii, in addition to Homarus americanus. Other authoritative references indicating accepted usage of such terms as rock lobster in referring to crustaceans other than Homarus americanus are the Yearbook of Fisheries Statistics for the years 1952 and 1953, published by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and Marine Products of Commerce, by D. K. Tressler and J. M. Lamon, published by Rheinhold Co. in 1951 (second edition), both of which indicate that members of the genus Panulirus of the family Palinurus are commonly known by the consumer as spiny lobster or rock lobster. Implied acknowledgment that crustaceans other than Homarus americanus are entitled to be referred to as lobsters is found in a publication entitled "The Story of the Maine Lobster," published in July 1949 by the State of Maine Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries. This publication states, "The Maine lobster of the family Nephropsidae is 1 of the world's 3 true lobsters-the other 2: H. vulgaris (European) and Nephrops norvegicus (Norwegian)." The present bill would not permit the use of the word "lobster" in the common or usual name of either H. vulgaris or Nephrops norvegicus. Thus, the bill would require removal from everyday terminology of the common or usual name designations which the consuming public has come to accept for certain crustaceans. To deny the continued use of the term "lobster" with appropriate qualifying words as the common or usual name of any crustacean other than Homarus americanus would undoubtedly result in consumer confusion and misunderstanding, and would necessitate the evolution of an entirely new nomenclature for products which have gained acceptance and recognition among consumers under the designations the proposed legislation proposes to ban. Any abuses in the labeling of crustaceans within the jurisdiction of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, whereby through improper use of the word "lobster" the consumer is led to believe that he is purchasing Homarus americanus whereas in fact it is some other crustacean, can adequately be dealt with under present law. We therefore while deferring to the views of other interested departments with respect to title I-recommend against enactment of title II of this bill. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it perceives no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letter dated January 11, 1957, acknowledged January 14, enclosing a copy of S. 237, 85th Congress, 1st session, entitled “A bill to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the word 'lobster' for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act" and inviting our comments on the proposed legislation. Title I of the bill defines the word "lobster," provides certain conditions under which it shall be unlawful knowingly to purchase, transport, or receive lobsters for transportation, and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make and enforce such regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the purpose of such title. Title II of the bill defines the word "lobster" for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. We have no information on the necessity for, or advisability of, this legislation and, accordingly, we have no recommendation to make with respect to its enactment, your attention being invited, however, to an apparent typographical error in the word "title" appearing in section 106, line 24, page 5. Sincerely yours, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Washington, D. C., January 23, 1957. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 11, 1957, enclosing a copy of S. 237, a bill to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the term "lobster" for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This legislation does not involve matters which are of concern to the Board. Accordingly, the Board expresses no opinion on this matter, and has no recommendation to make in regard to the legislation. Sincerely yours, CHAN GURNEY, Acting Chairman. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D. C., April 3, 1957. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice relative to the bill (S. 237) to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the term "lobster" for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Title I of the bill makes it unlawful for any person to deliver or knowingly receive for transportation, or to knowingly transport, by any means whatsoever, from any foreign country to the United States, or from any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, to or through any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to or through any foreign country, any lobster if (1) such transportation is contrary to the law of the political subdivision from which the lobster is to be transported or (2) if such lobster had been acquired, sold, or purchased, possessed, or transported at any time contrary to the law of the political subdivision in which such act had taken place or (3) if such lobster is less than 316 inches when measured in the manner described by the said bills. The bill also prohibits the knowing receipt or purchase of lobsters transported in violation of title I and specifically prohibits the making or rendering of a false record or account of the contents of any such shipment. The term "lobster" is restricted to the species of decapod crustaceans of the genus Homarus found in the Atlantic waters contiguous to the North American coast line from Labrador to the vicinity of Cape Hatteras, N. C. There is a further descriptive definition of the term "lobster" in the bill. The bill requires that all packages containing lobsters transported in interstate commerce be clearly labeled, and makes such lobsters subject to the laws of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, into which they are transported whether or not they are introduced in the original container. The Secretary of the Interior is given the responsibility for the enforcement of this title. He is, accordingly, authorized to make the necessary expenditures and issue the regulations necessary for such enforcement. Any employee of the Department of Interior authorized by the Secretary of Interior to enforce the provisions of title I is given the powers to arrest, without warrant, any person committing a violation of this title in his presence, to execute warrants or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction, and to make a search in accordance with the terms of a warrant duly issued for that purpose. Any Federal judge or United States commissioner may, within his respective jurisdiction, issue warrants in such cases. There is also provision for the seizure of lobsters which have been transported, purchased, or received in violation of title I or any regulations promulgated thereunder. Upon the conviction of the offender under the criminal provisions of the title, or upon judgment of the court that the subject matter was transported, delivered, purchased, or received in violation of it or regulations issued thereunder, the lobsters are subject to forfeiture. A violator, in addition to the forfeiture provisions, is subject to a fine of not exceeding $200, or imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 months, or both. Title II defines the term "lobster" for the purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The definition is the same as the definition set forth in title I. It also excludes from the term "lobster" certain other designated species which are commonly referred to as lobsters. At present the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not define the term "lobster." Adding this definition to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act would prohibit the use of the label "lobster" on all species except those coming within the definition set forth in the bill. Whether this measure should be enacted constitutes a question of policy concerning which the Department of Justice prefers to make no recommendation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 28, 1957. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Further reference is made to your letter of January 11, 1957, requesting a report on S. 237, a bill to regulate the interstate transportation of lobsters, and to define the term "lobster" for the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This Department objects to the provisions of the bill which would confine the use of the word "lobster" for the purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to Homarus americanus. The enactment of these provisions would make it unlawful to sell or label as lobsters certain products which have been traditionally known as lobsters by the American trade and consumers. This would operate as an unwarranted restriction on lobster imports, contrary to the President's program of expanding international trade so as to increase our own economic strength and that of other free countries. Imports of lobsters other than of the species Homarus americanus were valued at over $18 million in 1955. South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Cuba, Mexico, and other countries are important sources of such imports. Moreover, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the United States has granted tariff concessions on lobsters to other countries in return for concessions on other products from these countries. If the United States should now by legislation determine that products customarily known as either a lobster or as a certain kind of lobster, could no longer be called a lobster, the countries to which the concession in lobsters was given could claim that the value of the concession was thereby being nullified or impaired. Under the agreement, the United States would grant compensatory concessions on other products or |