88
Mr. LUCIANO. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that there
may not be a need to impose any limit on the size of the claim. The
question, I think, is a matter of principle. What works inside the
locks should work outside the locks. To differentiate between the
two does not seem, in our opinion, to have any basis.
Mr. HUBBARD. If Congress does see the need to put a limit on,
what do you think would be realistic?
Mr. LUCIANO. We have not addressed that issue, Mr. Chairman,
with our members. I don't know that I could advise you. Given the
size of the claims that we have heard discussed this morning, there
is the potential that any limit that might be imposed is one which
at some time or other down the road might require the Congress to
sit and arbitrate claims, which I think is probably not an efficient
use of the process.
Mr. HUBBARD. Regarding the present procedure of awarding the
Board of Local Inspectors detention damages, what is the average
length of time between the marine accident and the board's investi-
gation?
Mr. LUCIANO. I believe it is a relatively short period of time. The
investigation itself, I believe, takes no more than about 24 hours on
average. However, although that might seem like a small amount
of time, there are two factors which make it reasonable to include
those damages in with actual damages: In the first place, we have
heard testimony about the increasing size of the ships that are
using the canal. The cost of capital, the cost of operating expenses
and so forth and so on can be very substantial even for just 1 day's
detention. Added to that, however, is the fact that in some cases, a
vessel may be subject to very substantial damages if a cargo is not
delivered on time by a certain date. If a date certain is specified in
the delivery contract, those damages can be very appreciable in
many cases.
Mr. LUCIANO. Is that better?
Mr. HUBBARD. Right. We may be back to you with more ques-
tions.
Mr. Corrado, in fact be thinking of the answer to this. We won't
ask for your answer until Mr. Lent returns. He and I were discuss-
ing on the House floor after having heard Mr. Gianelli and Mr.
McAuliffe and the three of you, just where do you three disagree
with Mr. McAuliffe and Gianelli as to what we should do? It was
somewhat confusing because we seem to think that you are in
agreement much of the time as to what needs to be done as to
these outside-the-lock claims.
Mr. CORRADO. Would you like me to respond to that?
Mr. HUBBARD. I was just passed a note by Robin McClung, the
assistant to Mr. Lent, that he is unable to return to the hearing. I
would ask any of the three of you to respond to that question.
Mr. CORRADO. I don't think there is any difference philosophical-
ly between our position and the position of Mr. Gianelli and Mr.
McAuliffe. They came at it from a little different direction, but I
think we all are in agreement that we would like the system
changed back to the way it was; namely, the responsibility-the li-
ability should rest on the Commission for the negligence of its em-
ployees. I think that is basically our position and I think that has
been our position. I think that is the position of all of us at the