Mr. KEATING. That feeling of animosity existed before the Coast Guard conducted these hearings.

Mr. HADDOCK. No. As a matter of fact, it did not. But there was a feeling of animosity toward the Navy. That has existed with merchant seamen for some time, probably not as strong as the attitude of the Coast Guard toward the Navy. There was no animosity in my opinion to the Coast Guard prior to the taking over of these functions. It has grown out of their handling of these procedures of merchant

seamen.

Mr. KEATING. When did that start?

Mr. HADDOCK. Either 1939 or 1940. I don't recall. The Coast Guard would have the information. It is the star chamber proceeding method that the seamen have disliked. I personally have not attended any of these hearings and have not represented any seamen before them. But in talking to merchant seamen I know there is a real hatred for the Coast Guard there.

In the early days when the Coast Guard staff took over these functions, our organization asked for an amendment to the procedures that had been followed in these hearings. At that time it was suggested that on appeals and in big ports a tripartite board should hear these cases-one member to represent the steamship company, one the union and the Coast Guard officer. We wanted that because we feared the very thing that did happen-the building up of this animosity. We were hopeful that a tripartite board such as that would avoid the building up of animosity and, at the same time, make the men feel they were getting fair representation. Whether or not the boards would have worked out better, I think only experience could show.

Congressman Keating asked several of the witnesses questions trying to determine if the situation has become any worse since the Coast Guard had this matter before the subcommittee last year. When your committee failed to act on this matter last year, I wrote a memorandum to all our unions pointing out that the

Mr. KEATING. I don't think that should stay in the record that way. The committee rejected this bill last year. It was rejected by the full committee.

Mr. HADDOCK. I am referring to the full committee now, not the subcommittee.

Mr. GRAHAM. The subcommittee reported in favor.

Mr. HADDOCK. I wrote a memo to the unions pointing out to them that the Coast Guard could no longer hold these hearings until they got a supplementary appropriation or an appropriation and suggested it might be well if attention was given this whole question of discipline to see that the number of cases did not increase, and to avoid any complications which might arise later. This because we foresaw that the Coast Guard would not seek the remedy indicated by the full committee but would come back again and try to get this thing through. My reason for that was I was following this in the Senate and we asked for permission to come before the full committee and appear on the bill. That permission was not given. There was considerable lobbying for the bill, but no hearings.

Mr. GRAHAM. Did the Senate conduct any hearings?
Mr. HADDOCK. None whatsoever.

74403-48-ser. 17- -11

But they did have the Coast Guard's reasons for passing the bill and I think that is, perhaps, what pushed the bill through. It went through in the last few days of that Senate session when the pressure for measures going through was quite great.

Mr. GRAHAM. Was that in the special session or the last regular session?

Mr. HADDOCK. The last regular session.

I sent this memorandum out to the unions and I have checked what they did about it in the last two weeks. The only thing done was that a story was run in the "Pilot", the official organ of the National Maritime Union. I was in New York this last week end and checked to see what steps had been taken and found none had been taken: I then went into the question and made it a point to contact as many officers as I could on this point of discipline. I am told by them that since the Coast Guard has had no authority to conduct these proceedings that discipline aboard ship has improved materially. I am not try ing to assign any reasons for it. I am telling you what I have learned. I should think that the Coast Guard records would show whether there have been fewer or more cases of discipline per ship and I would be inclined to think they would deserve more consideration than the word of mouth I have received from people because that is all it was. Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt. How many members do you have in your maritime union?

Mr. HADDOCK. The CIO Maritime Committee has approximately 250,000 maritime workers represented. However, we represent shipyards and fishermen also. I think the National Maritime Union's last per capita payments were on 72,000, as I recall. That is the largest organization we represent, of course, in the group.

Captain Jewell referred to repeated cases of drunkenness and admonitions which the Coast Guard gave these people. While again, this is not to the point of the bill, there are many, many cases of a minor nature which the Coast Guard takes up which, in my own candid opinion, it should not be concerned with-I am not referring to drunkenness on watch or anything else-I would like to point out to the committee when I am referring to drunkenness, that I am a teetotaller. I am not trying to protect seamen who get drunk. I think it is their own business so long as it does not affect the man next to him.

But the master of a ship has considerable power with regard to enforcement of discipline-with regard to levying fines and other punishment. I do not think the Coast Guard ought to get into a lot of minor cases that they do get into.

On shore side-if a man comes to work late after being drunk-what happens to him in that case? We think the same approach should be made with regard to merchant seamen. If a ship is in port and a man does not show up because he is drunk, we think he should be treated as a shore-side workman. When he is at sea and his actions may lead to incidents or would affect other men, you have an entirely different situation. But when these ships are in port, I personally feel very strongly about the matter, that the same sort of personal management should be carried on that is carried on with regard to the men who work on shore.

Mr. GRAHAM. Do they allow liquor on board ships?

Mr. HADDOCK. No one but the captain is supposed to have liquor on board ship.

Mr. GRAHAM. So, if a seaman possesses liquor aboard ship he is violating some rule there?

Mr. HADDOCK. He is, indeed. I think examination would indicate that there are very few cases of drunkenness on shipboard usually. Seamen are rather temperate with regard to their job but intemperate with regard to-

Mr. GRAHAM. Recreation?

Mr. HADDOCK. Recreation. Yes. That is the word I wanted, Mr. Chairman, thank you. There are many reasons for that. There are very good reasons which I am sure you will all understand.

Another point I want to refer to that had to do with Coast Guard testimony was their inference that they could not, even if they had the money, get qualified examiners.

I just cannot give any credence to that sort of an inference myself. I am sure that myself or any other person as competent as myselfand I do not consider myself particularly competent-could establish civil service examinations for this job and get the people without too much trouble.

I personally know of several people who would be very competent to handle this sort of thing. I don't think there would be much trouble and I have not the facilities of the Civil Service Commission at my disposal. But it is just begging the point. If the Coast Guard makes up its mind that it is going to conduct these hearings with civil examiners they can get the examiners. But if they cannot, and want the offer of my services, I will be glad to furnish them with 22 men within a month who in my opinion would be competent. That is no problem at all and it is no reason for trying to get these things put into the Coast Guard's regular officer system.

I was particularly interested in a statement made by Congressman Latham in his testimony. I quote—

Mr. Keating has asked what has happened since failure to pass the original bill. My answer is more people are being killed at sea, more American lives are being jeopardized on the high seas, because you are permitting incompetent officers and men to sail the ships.

My interpretation of that was that this judicial committee was permitting more incompetent men to sail the seas. It seems to me quite obvious that this matter is a matter for the whole Congress and particularly for the Coast Guard. I do not know what experience the Coast Guard had before the Appropriations Committee. I have talked to a couple of members of the Appropriations Committee that handled this matter, however, and I am impressed with the thought that if that committee had understood that the Coast Guard was not going to get to conduct these hearings with military officers that they could have gotten their money. Only the Appropriations Committee and Congress can answer that question. But the Coast Guard is giving impressions here that they ought not to give, that it is this committee's bill. I think, if the Appropriations Committee is apprized of all the facts, it will take the appropriate action.

Whether or not there are more people being killed now than before the Coast Guard failed to get this money, Mr. Latham did not go into. Whether these are peoples' lives being jeopardized as a result of their not having this authority, or whether they are over and above the lives being jeopardized when they did have the authority are all questions that are pertinent.

If more people's lives are being jeopardized than previously I think it is something of real concern which the Coast Guard should call to the attention of the Appropriations Committee with a view to getting their appropriations so they can proceed to enforce these rules and regulations as they are required to do by the act.

Mr. Latham goes on further and says he can give 700 instances involving death and collision at sea. This seems to me to make a real point700 cases since the Coast Guard stopped enforcing these rules-all deaths and collisions at sea. I cannot believe that, and if the committee got that impression I think Mr. Latham ought to be called back and asked to explain whether there have been 700 cases of death and collision at sea as a result of incompetence and lack of discipline aboard ship because if that is the point he is making, we should do something about it.

Mr. KEATING. We are still waiting on that!

Mr. HADDOCK. I think you will wait a long time for submitting the evidence on that. I feel quite positive that there have not been 700 cases of the sort he suggested.

One other point. When Congressman Hand testified before you he stated he doubted whether the Coast Guard seeks the authority to continue these functions with these officers.

I was quite amazed at that because I believe the Coast Guard has been very frank in admitting it was seeking this authority because it thought it was the most proper way to do it. If there is any doubt in the minds of the members of the subcommittee I think they ought to get Congressman Hand and the Coast Guard to specifically state what the position of the Coast Guard is with regard to it.

Congressman Buck also discussed this. But I think his discussion fitted into the two points I made first. First, that there is necessity for better discipline; and, second, his testimony should have been directed to H. R. 3972.

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you finished Mr. Haddock?

Mr. HADDOCK. That finishes my statement.

Mr. GRAHAM. Any questions by members of the committee?

No questions.

Have you any statement you wish to submit for the record?

Mr. HADDOCK. We submitted a statement on these questions last year and I would commend the reading of that to the members of the committee if it is not fresh in their minds.

Mr. GRAHAM. Are there any other witnesses who desire to be heard at this time?

Any witnesses in rebuttal on behalf of the Coast Guard?
Captain Richmond.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. A. C. RICHMOND

Captain RICHMOND. This committee has been very patient and I have prepared a brief statement. I find I go right to the same point. as Mr. Harolds and Mr. Haddock and agree that much of the discussion has not been directly to the point. I am going to stick very closely in my statement to the point.

At the outset, let me state that the passage or nonpassage of this bill will neither add to nor detract from the responsibility now vested by law in the Coast Guard or the Commandant thereof. The passage

or nonpassage of S. 1077 will in no respect alter the disiplinary requirements of R. S. 4450, as amended-change the rule with respect to admission of log book entries, as evidence-amend the appeal procedure in any manner-nor eliminate double jeopardy if there were

any.

The only thing that a decision on this legislation will ever solve, is to which of two possible mediums or agents, the Commandant may delegate the responsibility of hearing those disciplinary cases involving merchant seamen which he, as a practical matter, is unable to hear in person. On the choice between these two agents, civil examiners or commissioned officers, there may be an honest difference of opinion but the issue should be confined to this choice.

Mr. KEATING. Let me ask you in clarification of that-under the laws which exist now, if the Commandant now had the time, he could hear all these cases?

Captain RICHMOND. He could hear every single case and be in complete conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. He is the agency described in that act, sir.

Mr. KEATING. And if he saw fit to, even if we were to take no action here, he could still refer a particular case to a member of the Coast Guard rather than to a civilian agency?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir. You mean he could delegate his authority? No. That is the very reason we require the bill. He cannot delegate that under a ruling by the Department of Justice, other than as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies members of the board or examiners appointed under the terms of the act. Mr. KEATING. I see.

Captain RICHMOND. Let me repeat, the Coast Guard gets not one iota of increased power or responsibility out of this bill. If the bill should be rejected by this committee or Congress, the civil examiners who would be employed would be employees of the Coast Guard, just as the examiners of ČAB or Interstate Commerce Commission, or the Federal Power Commission are employees of their respective agencies. As civil examiners sitting on these cases, which would be still investigated and presented by Coast Guard officers, they would, in those cases where no witnesses were available be forced to render their decisions on the basis of log entries, just as the commissioned officer did. in the case presented to you the other day by Mr. Harolds. The case of the seaman who stood mute in the face of a series of allegations culminating in one that he deserted his ship in a foreign port. And I think that we can safely assume that even with civil examiners charges will be proved on the basis of log entries alone, because you will recall it was explained that log entries when properly made are acceptable as evidence. To prove that the Coast Guard is not unfamiliar with this rule of evidence, I would, with the permission of the chairman, like to place in the record a decision on appeal in which the action of the hearing officer was reversed by the Commandant because there was no showing that certain log entries upon which two specifications were based had been made in compliance with law.

If that is permissible, I would like to put this decision in the record. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. It will be made part of the record.

Captain RICHMOND. The question of double jeopardy has been raised on several occasions. It is not believed there is any more double jeopardy involved in these "In Rem" proceedings against the licenses

74403-48-ser. 17-12