Lapas attēli

Mr. KEATING. When I read the statement it struck me as a very fine example of discipline in the Union itself.

Mr. HADDOCK. I don't think you can go on any ship but what you find “beefs.” It is general. Men on board ship gripe a lot as in the armed services. There are many reasons for it. Any reporter can go aboard any ship and get a statement from any member of the crew if he hunting for a story.

Mr. KEATING. The man who made the statement was a subordinate member of the Union?

Mr. HADDOCK. I understand he was a member of the Union on the ship, and a ships delegate.

Mr. KEATING. As I read the story, and I always regard it as dangerous to draw conclusions from newspaper articles, the head of the Union in pretty clear terms told him where he got off and said, “I am running this thing and the ship will sail. We have a contract with the owners and we will live up to our contract and the ship will sail."

Mr. HADDOCK. That is in essence what was said and what happened.

Mr. HOBBs. What happened to the man who made the statement? Did he sail with the ship?

Mr. HADDOCK. I do not know. There was no report made to me on it. Mr. KEATING. Or to the Coast Guard ?

Mr. HADDOCK. I don't know. There may have been some kind of action taken with regard to the particular person who made the statement involved. I do not know.

Mr. GORSKI. That statement was made but was anything done about it?

Mr. HADDOCK. Something was done about it. Yes.

Mr. GORSKI. But so far as he said the ship would not sail, the ship did sail?

Mr. GRATIAM. I think the question was directed to the individual who made the statement.

Mr. HADDOCK. He wanted to know whether the threat of the individual was carried out. It was not carried out. The ship did sail.

Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead, Mr. Haddock.

Mr. HADDOCK. One question I want to raise is this whole trend in this country to turn things over to the military. I personally, and I know a lot of Congressmen have been much concerned over the whole trend of our civilian government being put in the hands of the military at this particular period. That is always of grave concern to me because I think that is one of the wisest things our forefathers did when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution we live under. It is a fearful trend to me. I think it is a trend we need to get away from in all our civilian life.

And insofar as merchant seamen are concerned, there is a tremendous dislike of the military aspects of the Coast Guard hearings. While I am no authority on the question, it is my impression that that is one of the main reasons why such at hatred of coast guard proceedings has grown up among merchant seamen.

Mr. GRAHAM. But do you recognize that when a ship is in distress the Coast Guard comes to the rescue? Why should there be such a hatred toward them?

Mr. HADDOCK. The only way I can reconcile it is that they conduct these hearings in a military manner instead of in a civilan manner. I am not any authority.

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 Ünion. 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.


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

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »