258 OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 



tween the ship and the laboratory. I felt that I had gained the confidence of 

 both my superiors and my crew, and of course this is the first requisite for a 

 smooth running ship. 



Then came the order to lay up the Albatross III. I was not taken into the 

 confidence of the Service on this action, nor was I subsequently consulted con- 

 cerning the condition of the vessel or the estimated financial requirements for 

 the balance of the year. 



The budget which I was given at the start of the fiscal year 1959 was ade- 

 quate to carry the vessel through the year with a minimum of maintenance and 

 average repair bills. Monthly budget sheets, issued by the laboratory, show 

 that we were operating the Albatross well within the appropriation. The 

 latest figures, dated January 31, 1959, show us to be a little on the plus side, with 

 ample funds for the remainder of the year. 



When the vessel was hauled out last summer for annual inspection, I was 

 entrusted with full responsibility for the repairs and maintenance work, Amer- 

 ican Bureau of Shipping survey, and U.S. Coast Guard inspection. Not one 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oflBcial came near the vessel. Yet, as a result 

 of reports originating within the Service, marine interests and the public 

 alike have been given the impression that the Albatross III is excessively ex- 

 pensive to operate and badly in need of major repairs. This is not true, and I 

 wonder if you are aware that this is not true. 



Furthermore, if it became necessary to lay up one of the vessels due to lack 

 of funds, who could have made the decision that the Albatross be the one? I 

 did not, and I am fairly certain that Captain Hayes of the Delaware was not 

 consulted. A comprehensive study of the overall operations of the two vessels : 

 work accomplished at sea, scientist accommodations, research facilities, labora- 

 tory space, condition of the main engine and hull, navigation equipment, fuel 

 and water capacity, cruising range, yes and even toilet facilities, all add up to 

 but one possible conclusion, that the Albatross III is by far the best equipped 

 and most economical to do the work. 



If there is some other reason for deactivating the Albatross, I have been un- 

 able to learn what it is, and I believe such information should be made 

 available. 



Only the union, representing the Government employees at the Woods Hole 

 Laboratory, has seen fit to consult me on the condition of the Albatross III. I 

 have replied with all the information I could glean from my own experience 

 and that of the officers, crew, and biologists who know the vessel as no one 

 else does. Some of this information is at considerable variance to that con- 

 tained in your report of February 25, 1959, to Senator Saltonstall. 

 Sincerely yours, 



E. H. HiLLER, 



Master, Formerly of the Albatross III. 



Faibhaven, Mass., March 9, 1959. 

 Mr. John McCakt, 



Legislative Director, American Federation of Oovernment Employees, 

 Washington, D.C. 



Deae Mr. McCaet: Attached is a summary of information furnished by the 

 master, chief officer and second officer of the research vessel Albatross III 

 which is, in effect, a rebuttal to the report issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv- 

 ice, concerning the deactivating of the Albatross III. 



This summary represents the beliefs of the crew of the vessel, some of whom 

 have been attached to the Albatross since it was activated in 1949. It is not 

 intended as a personal gripe of one or more crew momJiers. but ralher a de^Jire 

 to make known all the facts by persons genuinely concerned and critically 

 involved in an action effecting the very economy of our country. 



