Lapas attēli

Mr. KEATING. As I remember our full committee acted unfavorably on the previous bill before us some time in May last year.

Captain RICHMOND. That is right.

Mr. KEATING. At that time did you immediately go to the Appropriations Committee and renew your request for funds to set up the civilian body?

Captain RICHMOND. Sir, before you acted unfavorably, anticipating it, we had submitted a supplemental request. The date of that report I read is July 24, 1917, which was a month after the action. As

you understand, when you go to the Appropriations Committee, it is only natural we have to go through the Treasury and the Bureau of the Budget. It isn't simply a question of walking into the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. KEATING. You have no funds now set up to conduct these hearings at all?

Captain RICHMOND. That is correct
Mr. KEATING. These cases are just piling up?
Captain RICHMOND. Yes.

Mr. KEATING. Suppose we pass this today, how would you handle it?

Captain RICHMOND. Even though it were passed today, we would assign officers who were working in other fields to take this job on, even if it meant cutting into other work. That is a personnel problem.

Mr. KEATING. In other words, you could use funds to pay officers of the Coast Guard to do this work but you could not use any funds to pay civilians ?

Captain RICHMOND. That is right, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Do you mean to tell me the United States Coast Guard has no way of arranging their funds so that they can use them for that purpose ?

Captain RICHMOND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KEATING. But they can use them to pay officers of the Coast Guard?

Captain RICHMOND. We have the qualified officers that can do the job. They have done it in the past, but in getting qualified civilians it means en ploying some civilians who must be brought in.

Mr. KEATING. You could use an officer instead of a civilian?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir. Our appropriation is set up in this fashion. Take “Salaries, Office of the Commandant,” at Washington. We have a limitation of $2,000,000 for civilian employees. Now irrespective of the funds we might have available in the over-all appropriaton we cannot exceed that limitation and we have run extensive reductions in force already this year to come in that limitation, and the same thing applies to the field. We would have to discharge the civilian employees regardless of what type of work it is he does, no matter whether an engineer or what, in order to get necessary funds to hire somebody to do this job.

Mr. KEATING. Don't you think if the tables had been reversed you would have figured out some way in the meantime to conduct these hearings by officers and to relieve civilians of their duties in order to make room for Coast Guard officers to handle the hearings?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir; I don't think so, if I understand your question.

Mr. KEATING. Well, now come back to my other question. Your associates have said it is not a fact that there have been additionalthat it is impossible to say that there have been additional infractions of regulations since the change last June. What other reasons are there why we should feel differently now from what we did last June!

Captain RICHMOND. Well, I think the present situation with respect to the Coast Guard is that we are in sort of an impossible situation. I don't think the situation is any different than it was last June. We are faced with a mandate from Congress under R. S. 4450 to take disciplinary action with respect to licenses and certificates of merchant officers and seamen, and because of this situation we are unable to do that.

Mr. KEATING. Your remedy is with the Appropriations Committee?

Captain RICHMOND. Not entirely, sir. There is the question of getting the people. The Civil Service Commission has not established a list.

Mr. KEATING. That is the fault of the Civil Service Commission?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir; you can't necessarily create the men to fill those jobs.

Mr. KEATING. Since last May you knew the attitude of the Congress of the United States as exemplified by the action of the Judiciary Committee in disapproving this legislation. It certainly isn't the fault of this committee that the funds haven't been provided and a civilian body set up to do the job.

Mr. GRAHAM. In justice to you people, you did have a companion bill in the Senate and you were looking with hope over there?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir,
Mr. GRAHAM. And that was passed.

Mr. KEATING. That is exactly what I have been trying to get at. They haven't lifted a finger to put into effect what they should and they were hoping we would act favorably upon the bill upon which the Senate acted favorably.

Captin RICHMOND. Sir, if I may be permitted to disagree with you. As I say, we have gone as far as we possibly can.

Mr. KEATING. I understand Civil Service

Captain RicinOND (interposing). They have not established a list.

Mr. KEATING. Have they held examinations?

Captain RICHMOND. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. We have the position classified.

Mr. KEATING. Have you requested them to do so?
Captain RICHMOND. For these positions?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir; because their examinations for examiners are not for the Coast Guard.

Mr. KEATING. They have examiners in every other field of activity. Have you requested them to assign examiners and pointed out to them the emergency of this situation?

Captain RICHMOND. Sir, we have had numerous long conferences with the Civil Service.

Mr. Keating. Have you pointed out the serious situation with which you are faced ?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes.

Mr. KEATING. Have you placed that in writing to them?
Captain RICHMOND. Not recently.

Mr. KEATING. How recently did you point out to them the emergency?

Captain RICHMOND. June is my guess. I don't have the letter.
Mr. KEATING. Will you produce the letter at the next hearing?
Captain RICHMOND. I will.
Mr. KEATING. That is all.
Mr. GRAHAM. Are there any other questions?

Mr. KEATING. Were public hearings held before the Senate Judiciary on S. 1077?

Captain RICHMOND. To my knowledge; no, sir.

Mr. KEATING. The opponents of the measure were not given any chance to be heard so far as you know?

Captain RICHMOND. So far as I know, neither the opponents nor the proponents of the subject.

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you any questions you wish to ask, Mr. Lewis?
Mr. LEWIS. No; I don't believe I have.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Reeves!
Mr. REEVES. No, sir.
Mr. LEWIS. I was pretty critical of this bill last year as I recall.
Mr. GRAHAM. Judge Hobbs, any questions?
Mr. HOBBS. No.
Mr. GRAHAM. Any questions, Mr. Gorski?
Mr. Gorski. No questions.

Mr. GRAHAM. All right then, Captain, will you step aside, please, sir.

Captain RICHMOND. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Latham, would you care to come back to the stand now?

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I am ready.



Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead, Mr. Latham.

Mr. LATHAM. I have read this memorandum which sets forth the objection of Mr. Walter to the passage of this bill, which is very general in nature.

My suggestion is that the passage of this bill would not only not break down the Administrative Procedures Act, but would put the law back where it was when that law was passed. It wasn't that act that did the damage here. It was the passage of the law a month later of the President's Reorgnization Plan No. 3 of 1946, which abolished the statutory offices of the employees of the Coast Guard. So, the passage of this act would restore the law where it was when you gentlemen passed the Administrative Procedures Act.

Mr. GRAHAM. In other words, there is no conflict between the Administrative Procedures Act, and no whittling away of the powers of that Act?

Mr. LATHAM. Exactly, because of the specific exemption in section 7 (a).

74403-48-ser. 17

Mr. GRAHAM. Now on that point does anybody wish to question Mr. Latham.

Mr. KEATING. You understand, Mr. Latham, the reason for that exception in the act at that time was because we were then in the war and during wartime it felt that the Coast Guard should conduct these hearings because of the quasi-military character and status of the personnel involved.

Mr. LATHAM. I don't know that that was the reason, Mr. Keating, but certainly this bill would put the law back where it was when you gentlemen passed the Administrative Procedures Act. If you leave it the way it is you have changed the Administrative Procedures Act.

Mr. KEATING. It was never contemplated there would be a long-term exemption. The Coast Guard temporarily conducted these hearings during the war. When they were first assigned the duty there was never any intention it would be permanent.

Mr. LATHAM. It is my opinion it would be a very very serious mistake to take them out.

Mr. GRAHAM. Does anybody else wish to question Mr. Latham on that particular point?

In view of Judge Hobbs' observation off the record, will you proceed?

Mr. HOBBS. I would suggest Mr. Latham be allowed to revise his testimony.

Mr. GRAHAM. And may I further suggest to you after the testimony is written up and typed, you may have access to it and if you wish to clarify it you may do so.

Mr. LATHAM. My contention is that the Coast Guard did continue to hold these investigations and disciplinary proceedings up until the time that the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 became law, and then the Attorney General, looking at that Administrative Procedures Act handed down a decision to the effect that because the reorganization plan wiped out the statutory offices of supervisors and inspectors and others, that the Coast Guard could no longer perform those functions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Now, Mr. Latham, do you wish to say something further?

You have heard the statement of Mr. Keating in his questions of Captain Richmond. Do you wish to address yourself to any phase of that?

Mr. LATHAM. Just one brief point. 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.

Mr. KEATING. That is exactly, Mr. Latham, the type of thing I wanted to find out about. I would not knowingly be a party to anything of that kind. Now that is intensely interesting. Is incompetenev one of the charges which can be brought against a seaman?

Mr. LATTIAM. I am certain that it is.
Mr. KEATING. I judge that you must have specific cases of that kind.

Mr. LATHAM. I can give you 700 of them on which no action has been taken involving death and collisions at sea, incompetent skippers, and many other cases. I will give them to you right now.

Mr. KEATING. And before the action of the full Committee on the Judiciary that didn't happen?

Mr. LATHAM. I will say some happened since then.

Mr. KEATING. That is exactly what I was trying to get from the representatives of the Coast Guard.

Mr. LATHAM. They can give you 400 cases.
Mr. KEATING. I will be very grateful to you.

Mr. LATHAM. Let me give you a few. I won't mention names. Here are a couple I just took at random:

First engineer charged with threatening the chief engineer and assaulting the chief mate and assistant mate. You can't have a situation like that going on in the engineroom of a ship. I know, because I was a skipper of a ship during the war. The man that pulls the switch in the engineroom has in his hands the fate of everybody on the ship. Mr. KEATING. Let me interrupt. Mr. LATHAM. Yes.

Mr. KEATING. How is the situation different now from what it would be if civilians conducted the hearings on these cases? Of course I recognize this, that it is absolutely essential that someone hear these cases. There has been no provision made to set up a hearing board since our committet acted and as to the responsibility of that there may be some difference of opinion, but in order that my position may

be clear with you, naturally there must be some hearing body.

Now what I am getting at is what reason is there today for requiring that those hearings be held by officers of the Coast Guard rather than civilians which did not exist when we had this matter up in June?

Mr. LaTIAM. Well, that is a little different question. The question is should the Coast Guard have it or should the civilians have it?

Mr. KEATING. That is right.

Mr. LATHAM. I am of the very firm opinion to take it out of the Coast Guard would be a very serious mistake. In the first place the Coast Guard know ships and the sea. If you let civilians do it you would get a bunch of bright young lawyers fresh out of Harvard law school who would hold hearings. You have an incident in Tokyo. You probably have Coast Guard officers there. They move in quickly and get the facts and dispose of the case. If you do it with civilians it is a case of spending $200,000 to $300,000 more than with the Coast Guard.

Mr. KEATING. Did you hear the testimony regarding ihe job they had done?

Mr. LATHAM. No; I didn't.

Mr. GRAHAM. When testimony was heard on the other bill one of the things that ran through my mind was the dispersal of witnesses. Would you address yourself to that?

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, suppose something happens in a little seaport in South America, some incident involving seamen on several ships. The ships depart for various destinations. How are you going to get the witnesses unless you do it on the spot ? The Coast Guard moves in, the Coast Guard man is there, gets all the facts and decides it and it is done.

Mr. KEATING. As I understand from the gentleman who testified for the Coast Guard, that the Coast Guard is still charged with the investigative duties even now. Would it not be sufficient to have them collect

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »