It may well be that the day is approaching when a State must share in the airways development or surrender to its more alert neighbors its portion of the air traffic. The States may eventually consider airways as important as highways. But no program of intrastate supplementary airways can, of course, be entered upon successfully if it is predicated upon laying the burden upon the aviation industry. We can not carry such burden, but rather are we in need of this aid, financed for some time yet to come from the general funds of the State. All these matters might be properly handled by a State regulatory body or department. We are convinced that a single State bureau dealing with all matters pertaining to aviation would simplify our problems considerably, just as the national air commerce act has cleared up much of the trouble which might have been ours-and the Nation's had we attempted to operate interstate lines before that law was passed. In interstate traffic we have but one group to deal with, the aeronautics branch of the Department of Commerce.

In State aviation we should have to have relations with 48 separate bodies, but that would be much better than dealing with numerous officials and departments located at different points within each of the States.

Aviation in future, if not so noticeably at present, must take different forms in each State. Conditions should govern flying. Mountains, waterways, dense populations, or no population at all should determine the nature of the regulations. Some States may be only junction points for interstate air traffic for years to come; in other States intercity and intrastate traffic will develop first; and in others private flying soon may constitute the chief form of aeronautical activity. The manner in which each State now prepares to handle and regulate this business is of the utmost concern to the industry. We already have experienced a conflict of interest and opinion; in New Jersey the State board of commerce and navigation made a decision to prohibit the use by aircraft of any New Jersey inland waters. This ruling was an incident to the denial of an application for permission to operate a flying boat from Lake Hopatcong. The board held that aircraft flying over inland waters 66 constitute a menace to surface navigation."

The Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce filed a protest against this ruling, which was obviously unjust because it sweepingly included all the inland waters of the State. At the suggestion of the chamber the board modified its ruling so that the use of only Lake Hopatcong by aircraft was specifically forbidden, and other applications for permits were to be considered on their own merits.

66

At approximately the same time the attorney general of Wisconsin wrote an opinion that the use of Wisconsin's inland waterways by aircraft constituted a proper use.' So there you have two contradictory opinions governing the same kind of flying activity, but not, however, in the same kind of territory. The vast majority of small lakes in New Jersey are crowded with summer residents and visitors, and they quite obviously would be endangered by the operation of aircraft, while the Wisconsin waterways are best reached by plane without any danger, except in remote cases, of disturbing those who might be out on the surface.

You will find differences of opinion within the industry concerning the method by which the States should secure uniform State regulation. Many States now require either a Federal license for aircraft engaged in intrastate commercial or all intrastate operations, or else a State license issued upon the basis of the same airworthiness requirements as those imposed by the air commerce regulations of the Federal Government for the issuance of a Federal license. Either of these two licensing systems results in uniformity and would seem to be in the interests of commercial air navigation. We hope that all the States will rapidly adopt one of these two systems as the solution for State regulation of aircraft engaged in intrastate navigation.

Similarly, we hope that all State laws will require either a Federal license for pilots and other airmen engaged in intrastate operations, commercial or noncommercial, or else a State license issued on the basis of the same qualifications as those imposed by the air commerce regulations for the issuance of a Federal pilot's or other airmen's

license.

With legislation of the above types upon the statute books of all the States, there will be uniformity of technical requirements throughout the Nation, both for aircraft and airmen. The only differences will be those arising from differences in State administrative personnel and procedure.

We do not anticipate much trouble over red tape in procuring State licenses for aircraft or pilots, providing there is a system established and that the system is not radically different from that adopted by the aeronautics branch of the Department of Commerce.

That opinion applies to all aeronautic law and regulations. We are sure that it is possible for the States to approach uniformity in airport legislation, laws pertaining to the operation of intrastate aircraft and regulations concerning insurance, aviation schools, taxation and other miscellaneous matters.

The laws fixing civil and criminal liability, as you know, have been considered time and again both by the American Bar Association and the committee on aeronautics of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. A uniform State law for aeronautics was the result of their consideration; and the majority of States appear to be carrying out the idea of uniformity as far as possible. We believe that this problem is one that requires longer experience in the actual field of operations before it can be clearly solved. We have in mind admiralty law which was not drafted into a single piece of legislation but was built up year by year, and during generation after generation until it became the fairly reasonable and practical code that exists to-day.

We have a simple suggestion to make to you gentlemen here in conference to-day. Adopt the principle of uniformity and while drafting your State laws and regulations, bear constantly in mind that the aircraft industry expects to thrive, not despite your legislation, but because of the benefits which it may derive through wise and tolerant laws set up to license instead of prohibit, encourage rather than discourage, and promote rather than retard the continued growth of aviation.

Chairman YOUNG. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to reverse the order of the next papers in order that the speaker, Senator Bingham, may return to a session of the Senate. The speaker has long been interested in aviation both during and since the war, and was a member of the Morrow Board which recommended the legislation of which I spoke as enacted in 1926. Also, he took a principal part in preparing and enacting the present air commerce act which is frequently referred to as the Bingham bill. He is president of the National Aeronautic Association and is United States Senator from Connecticut.

PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTIC ASSOCIATION AS RELATED TO UNIFORMITY IN AERONAUTIC LEGISLATION AND REGULATION

BY SENATOR HIRAM BINGHAM, president National Aeronautic Association

Mr. Chairman and delegates, before I proceed with the reading of the paper on the subject which was assigned to me, perhaps you will pardon me if I make a few observations in view of what the chairman has just said. It was quite apparent to those of us who came back from France at the end of the World War that the United States had been way behind in enacting legislation to protect those who desire to insure commercial aircraft and who desire to use it.

We have had for 100 years legislation protecting ships using the waters but had not passed any legislation protecting or arranging for the licensing of pilots and ships in the air. I presume it is a fair statement to make that had practical air navigation been in sight at the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted by the convention in Philadelphia, that in addition to giving the Congress the power to make laws for the navigable waters of the United States, the Congress would have been given power to make laws for the navigable air of the United States.

Of course, I realize that at that time under the English common law under which we operate, when you owned a bit of land you owned it to the center of the earth and up to the heavens, and, therefore, you had an inherent right to the air over the land as well as to the minerals under the surface of the land. However, had we been flying at that time for a few generations there is no question in my mind but that the fathers of the Constitution would have realized that it is just as important to grant to the Congress the right to make legislation for navigable air as well as for navigable water. I have sometimes thought of introducing an amendment to the Constitution giving to the Congress the right to make laws governing the navigable air.

The term "navigable air," defined in some practicable way, is a region sufficiently high above the land to permit the common law right of the man owning the land to build up into the air as many stories of a building as he desires; to make as high a tower as he desires. I say I have frequently thought about introducing such an amendment but realizing the attitude of the people of the United States toward amendments to the Constitution, and realizing the rather disastrous character of a certain amendment and the efforts now being made to repeal it and to give give back to the people of

the States the rights which they retain under the original Constitution to make their own sumptuary acts, I have felt that the time was not propitious for introducing another amendment to the Constitution. The last one proposed by the Congress, on child labor law, was badly defeated, and very emphatically by State legislatures who had learned to their cost that when they hastily adopted the eighteenth amendment, they were not following out the wishes of the majority of the people of the United States. Consequently, the Congress has no specific rights to make laws for the navigable air as it has for the navigable waters of the United States.

When the air commerce act, just referred to by your chairman, was in process of being formed we had several very serious conferences. I am sure my friend, Bill MacCracken, remembers one that took place in the dining room of the Metropolitan Club, where he and some of those who had been working for years with a committee of the bar association to perfect the proposed legislation, were extremely anxious that we proceed on the assumption that Congress had the right to make air laws for all the United States. However, those of us who had the business of putting legislation through the Congress were very much afraid that if we attempted to do anything of that kind we would run into very serious difficulties. There are still a few people on Capitol Hill who are interested in State's rights. I happen to be one of them. My attitude toward State's rights is in conflict with what would be better for aviation. It would be better for aviation if we could get uniform air laws, certainly in so far as the licensing of pilots is concerned. That is my private belief, but I did not want to endanger the legislation nor attempt to put through the Congress legislation which might be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. So we thought it best to pass the law in the form in which it was passed. We ventured, however, to put into the law the clause giving the Department of Commerce the right to make the air traffic laws for all the navigable air of the United States and that right has never been disputed in the courts, and I am sure that no one interested in aviation would ever think of bringing a case up in the Supreme Court to make it impossible for the Department of Commerce to make uniform air traffic rules.

The world's first pilot, the father of aviation, Orville Wright, took the position with regard to the licensing of air machines in particular that it would hamper the development of aviation if a bureau in Washington had the right to make regulations governing the types of aircraft and engines that could be experimentally flown or used within the boundaries of the States. He thought it was far better to give the States such rights as they saw fit, and even if the inventor found that the laws in the State in which he lived were too stringent, he could move into some other State where the experiment could be carried out. He felt very strongly in the matter and helped me in my belief that it was both unwise and unconstitutional.

Having now spoken on my own behalf, I will speak on behalf of the National Aeronautic Association, of which I have at the present time the honor of being president.

The purpose of the National Aeronautic Association is to promote flying. It is interested in the promotion of flying as a sport, as a

means of transportation for commerce and for pleasure, and as an agency of the national defense.

The National Aeronautic Association holds it to be a self-evident proposition that the best interests of all concerned are best served by uniformity of regulations. Our official platform for 1930 contains the following planks: "We favor uniform State aeronautical legislation consistent with the Federal laws on the subject and in accordance with the recommended legislation set forth in Aeronautics Bulletin No. 18 of the Department of Commerce," and we favor suitable State legislation requiring the air marking of all incorporated cities in accordance with the standards of the United States Department of Commerce."

66

Í believe that the State of Ohio has a law of that kind. I do not know whether other States have. If any one of you who has piloted a ship on a day when clouds were low and looked for an occasional chance to pierce through the fog and have suddenly come over a town and tried to orient yourself, and wondered what that town was, you will realize the importance of this. Sometimes I have flown over my own State and have been unable to recognize the territory or the town beneath me and have been a little uncertain in directing the course of the ship. If all States were required to airmark all incorporated cities in accordance with the standards of the Department of Commerce, it would help a great deal in promoting safety for pilots in bad weather.

There is no more practical method of securing uniformity than by having all municipal laws and ordinances in harmony with the Federal laws and regulations. Therefore, the National Aeronautic Association stands squarely behind the proposition that the States and cities should follow the lead of the Federal Government and take the advice of the Department of Commerce in the framing of their local legislation. By doing this, the States and cities will also contribute greatly to the safety and comfort of air transportation. And in the final analysis the future development of aviation in America depends primarily upon increase of safety.

That was brought to my attention not so long ago on a visit to the modern airport of the Pan American Airways in Miami, where a large number of people were arriving and departing each day for Habana, a trip involving a very great saving of time, and increase in comfort for those who do not like the channel. I noticed in the newspapers the departures and arrivals to Habana by boat and the number of passengers, but nothing was given of the names of the passengers on the planes and I suggested to the management of the airport that it would help their business if the people back home were given the opportunity to see who was flying.

He said, We considered that and gave the names of the passengers at first but we had to stop it as so many of the men's wives telegraphed for their husbands to come home by train." And a number of ladies also asked the manager of the airport to have the publication of the names of the passengers stopped as their husbands were very much against flying.

I think that when we sell to the public the idea that regular air transportation over regular airways is one of the very safest means of transportation in the world, we will do a great deal to help avia