« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
which deteriorates in time of peace cannot be changed into an effective weapon in time of war. A crew which lacks discipline and which disobeys the orders of the master or the officer-in-charge will not be galvanized into an efficient team by the outbreak of war. Disdain of authority destroys all respect for officers aboard ship. The officer himself becomes less eflicient when he knows that his order may not be followed, and when he knows that there is nothing that he can do about it.
There is not better example of this than the recent disgrace on board the flagship of the American merchant marine, the S. S. America, where a radical element in the crew announced on arrival that the vessel would be unable to secure a crew for her next voyage unless certain supervisory personnel were fired. You will recall that this brought forth a statement from Commodore Manning, master of the ship, that discipline on American vessels had sunk to the point where the master could not longer run his ship and labor elements on board endeavored to take over the entire management of the vessel.
These actions, which are typical of those which steamship operators have faced in the last 9 months, follow closely the pattern used by all subversive groups. Obviously the American merchant marine cannot thrive if the American skipper and the American passenger have no confidence in its operation. What passenger would be willing to take his chances on sailing on schedule on an American ship? What shipper is patriotic enough to prejudice prompt arrival of his shipment abroad by relying on ships which may lie idle at the dock for weeks because of irresponsible elements in our maritime personnel ? Vessels which are not patronized become laid-up vessels and the business goes to our foreign flag competitors.
What, then, in time of war? Foreign flagships are immediately recalled to the country of their flag. Not only are shippers but our armed services are deprived of the water transportation so necessary in any national emergency. It is not at all far-fetched to conclude that it is this point to which the subversive elements on our ships are directing their actions so that in another emergency, if it should come, our military forces will not have this vital auxiliary.
I might say for the record that we have a very definite legislative procedure within the Legion. We have a membership of approximately three and a quarter million men and women voters; an auxiliary of practically one million ladies. No one in that organization has any autocratic or dictatorial power to establish the policy of the Legion. It is established by mandates of our two governing bodies, the annual convention and the national executive committee, and the members of the convention and that committee are elected by the local organization which is about as democratic as we can have it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Have you any knowledge of infiltration of communistic practices and teachings into the merchant marine?
Mr. HAYDEN. I think there is no question of that. Our people felt that a lot of this lack of discipline is deliberately due to deliberate action of subversive elements. There is no question about it. The preamble of the constitution shows the awareness of the Legion that twice in the present generation our Government has failed to provide for the development of the merchant marine in the event of an emergency, and feels that we are again faced with the same situation.
Mr. Chairman, we petition Congress to act favorably and promptly on S. 1077.
Mr. GRAHAM. Are there any questions?
Mr. HAROLDS. I have a supplementary statement I would like to put in. I only make this statement in rebuttal because I was asked to come back this morning, I suppose for that very purpose.
Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead, Mr. Harolds.
Mr. HAROLDS. I respectfully submit that, so far, the witnesses that have testified have entirely avoided the issue that is before this subcommittee.
The issue here, as I understand it, is whether the Coast Guard should be exempted from the Administrative Procedure Act; and whether it shall continue to exercise jurisdiction in seamen's misconduct cases under section 4450 of the Revised Statutes.
When I was here last week, I cited specific instances to show that the persons who were conducting it under the Coast Guard were in a large sense not qualified nor were they impartial.
Mr. Maloney has stated that a lot of the criticism which I gave of the Coast Guard I also gave of the old Bureau of Inspection and Navigation. That is true. It was severely criticized in the Attorney General's report and many of the things which warranted criticisms in that report were carried over when the Coast Guard took over the hearing of these cases under our S. 4450 as amended.
As a matter of fact, as I pointed out the last time, many of the personnel were retained from the old Legal Bureau. The Administrative Procedure Act was adopted for the purpose of providing a uniform safeguard for various people who appeared before administrative tribunals; and I still have heard no reason why the Coast Guard along with all other administrative agencies should be able to dispense with these legal requirements which other agencies are required to follow under the law. If we exempt them, every agency will have justification for coming forward and asking for a similar exemption on the ground that they too have specialized knowledge or training for the field in which they operate. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Harolds, may I ask if a national
ergency should develop quickly, do you feel that the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act should stand in the way of national safety?
Mr. HAROLDS. When an emergency arises, particularly in the merchant marine industry, the President generally takes control and places all means of transportation under his direct supervision under his War Powers Act and I assume that would happen again. But at present we are speaking of a peacetime long-range situation.
Mr. KEATING. You are not envisaging a national emergency in your testimony?
Mr. HAROLDS. No. I am speaking of the legislation that exists today. R. S. 4450 has been on the books a long time. When the Coast Guard stepped in it was under a war situation. The war is now at an end and they want to continue.
Mr. GRATIAM. We hope the war is at an end !
Now, Captain Cumings pointed out that certain seamen who are permitted to sail are menaces. We
such men should not be protected or permitted to sail. That is not the issue. The issue is, who shall determine whether a man has violated S. 4450. For that, we want an impartial, qualified civilian agency which we say is not the Coast Guard.
Captain Preble has testified representing a master mariners' guild. This may be a very large organization, but frankly, I have never heard of it. I don't think that Mr. Haddock who has been on the scene representing maritime labor has ever heard of it. It did not appear from Mr. Preble's testimony what experience he has had with the type of justice handed out by the Coast Guard.
Mr. Hayden, on behalf of the American Legion urges that discipline is necessary at sea. We do not deny that. But we think he has completely avoided the issue. Mr. Hayden says there are quite a few Communists among the seamen. If that is so, that would be no reason for having an unqualified and partial tribunal sitting on seamen's cases under S. 4450.
All this testimony has been avoiding the issue. I sincerely hope that the Coast Guard, when they appear, will bring themselves to the issue itself rather than to avoidance of it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Any questions by members of the committee? (No response.) Mr. Haddock represents the CIO. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Haddock.
STATEMENT OF HOYT HADDOCK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CIO,
Mr. HADDOCK. I am executive secretary of the CIO Maritime Committee and I am appearing, as I did last session, in opposition to the enactment of this measure.
At the outset, I want to raise in essence and emphasis just what Mr. Harolds has emphasized. Practically all of the witnesses that have been before the committee-that is, the people in favor of the billhave dealt with two issues.
First, they have constantly made the point that discipline is necessary aboard ship. With that, the organizations that I represent heartily agree. I think they can take credit for a considerable improvement in discipline that has taken place since their inception.
Second, the proponents of the bill have emphasized that the Coast Guard is the agency which should be in charge of discipline aboard ship.
The second point is not the issue. Their testimony on that point should be directed to H. R. 3972, a bill before the Expenditures Committee, introduced by Congressman Francis Walter, who would remove all of these maritime functions from the Coast Guard, and arguments should be directed to at bill.
Mr. KEATING. I don't know about that bill. How does it differ in effect from that before us?
Mr. HADDOCK. S. 1077 raises the question as to whether the Coast Guard shall, through its officers, discipline seamen aboard merchant ships as opposed to the Administrative Procedures Act which requires civilian oflicers. That is all there is in this bill. S. 1077 simply decides that issue and that is all. The other bill H. R. 3972 decides the issue as to whether or not the Coast Guard should in any way have anything to do with discipline of merchant seamen or enforcement of safety of life at sea laws.
Mr. KEATING. The other bill is broader and would deprive the Coast Guard of more.
Mr. HADDOCK. It would return the enforcement of all the maritime functions now administered by the Coast Guard to a civilian agency as such, the Department of Commerce specifically, where it was prior to the transfer to the Coast Guard during the war.
In my opinion that is the argument that most of these witnesses have been making aside from the disciplinary argument which we completely agreed with that there is necessity for discipline aboard ship.
I think the people who sail these ships, and whose lives may be lost as a result of accidents, are more concerned with discipline than most people would think they are. Seamen are interested, after all, in continuing to live.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Haddock, if I understand you correctly you believe it would be better to have this inspection and hearing through the Department of Commerce rather than through the Coast Guard.
Mr. HADDOCK. I am not directing my argument to that point. That is not before the committee at this time.
Mr. GRAHAM. I asked you personally what you think about it.
Mr. HADDOCK. You think that will have a bearing on this particular bill?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
Mr. HADDOCK. Congressman Walter introduced the bill as a result of evidence during the last session.
Mr. GRAHAM. Congressman Walter's bill is the result of hearings we have had and introduced, presumably by the CIO.
Mr. HADDOCK. At our request—that is correct. But I do not want to direct my testimony at that bill because that is not the issue. I would be glad to direct my testimony to it at length and we will if it ever comes to hearing. But, specifically, with regard to S. 1077, Mr. Harolds has shown our feeling in this matter.
I want to direct my criticism at some of the testimony that has been presented here which has led me to the conclusion which I have just stated:
First, that they have directed their testimony to the necessity of discipline aboard ship—to which we agree.
Second, to the point that the Coast Guard should be the ones to enforce the discipline.
Then, I want to refer specifically to Captain Cumings. You asked the direct question as to whether or not there were, as a result of the use of marijuana, any sex crimes on board ship.
I would like to hear the captain answer that. I don't think he did. But he referred to sex crimes aboard ship of which there are apparently many. I have no number. The Coast Guard is in a position to know, but whether these sex crimes are as a result of marijuana I don't know. I suppose they are. I oppose the use of marijuana. But that is just the type of testimony that has been given this committee all through. Nothing direct and to the point has been said by the proponents of this bill. I think Mr. Harolds had something very specific to say to the point with regard to opposition to the measure.
Now, the representative of the Legion here referred to the discipline in the Navy and the discipline in the merchant marine. I think it would be very interesting if this committee had before it a comparison of the cases of discipline in the Navy as compared to discipline in the merchant marine during the war years. I think it would be very interesting although it does not go to the point of the bill. It would be interesting when H. R. 3972 is up. That would, perhaps, be a very pertinent question and would be very revealing, I think.
He also referred, or stated in effect, that the only way to have discipline on merchant vessels is through the exercise of control of the men through their certificates and licenses. While again this is not to the point of this bill, I would categorically state that our organizations disagree 100 percent with that theory. Discipline aboard ship has never been enforced as a result of fear and in our opinion can never be so enforced.
I also want to state that the Coast Guard can not enforce discipline on board ship. Certainly, the Coast Guard can take disciplinary against merchant seamen for violation of existing regulations. But I think the history of the Coast Guard function in this field, if they will analyze it for you, will show that the Coast Guard has not enforced discipline. They have disciplined people who have not been acting properly on the vessel. Discipline on board ship is going to come in the right way. This is a matter which will be up before the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in the very near future. And when it does come up, I intend to go into the present procedures which are necessary in our opinion.
If discipline is enforced on board ship it will come, not as a result of fear, but of understanding and respect which occurs right on the ship and is the result of relations between officers and unlicensed seamen; and as a result of their own relations—but that again, I submit, is not the question involved in this bill. People alluded to them and that is why I mention it.
We are prepared to give extensive testimony on the question of discipline. We think it needs a great deal of study by all concerned.
The American Legion representative also referred to a recent incident where a pronouncement was made by a member of the crew of the SS. America—that she was not going to sail the next trip. I do not know how many members of the committee are familiar with that. The ship sailed the next trip.
Mr. KEATING. The man that made that statement was disciplined by the head of the Union and was told in no uncertain terms that it was entirely out of order.
Mr. HADDOCK. The President, Joseph Curran, has specific authority to enforce contracts with Steamship Companies. As soon as the papers quoted this statement President Curran announced that the America would sail as scheduled—Why such a statement was reported I don't know, unless some very capable reporter was in desperate need of a story. You can get this kind of statement on any ship you want and write stories on it. But as soon as it became a matter of public concern, Curran stated that he, not the fellow that made the statement, had the responsibility of enforcing the contracts and that the ship would sail. Further that any difficulties involving the operation of the ship would be taken up as outlined in the contract.