own hearing officer or judge. No jury is chosen and he is not tried before a jury of his peers, which is a constitutional right of which he cannot avail himself. The hearing officer acts as judge and jury and in many cases becomes the district attorney. If the master who entered the notation in the logbook is not present, the logbook then is allowed in evidence and becomes prima facie proof of guilt. The accused has not been given an opportunity naturally of being faced by his accuser and of course cannot cross-examine the logbook, all of which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Very often, the master who makes the entry in the logbook, gets his information from a third party and therefore the entry itself is nothing but hearsay evidence which again is contrary to all law as we practice it in the United States. The burden of proving guilt is not placed upon the accuser as is done in all proceedings, but immediately the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove that he is not guilty.

It has been our experience that the men who act both as examiners and hearing officers, are not fitted for these jobs either by temperament, training, or experience. They are not familiar with the problems that arise on a merchant vessel. Those few who have gone to sea have had service on a military ship, which is entirely different from that of a merchant vessel and it seems highly unfair to have a man sit as judge and jury in the trial of a merchant seaman when he is not familiar with the customs and usages which obtain aboard merchant vessels.

In addition to being logged by the master for an infraction of the rule, he is also tried for the same offense before the Coast Guard and this places him in double jeopardy. The argument that the Coast Guard uses is that the master confines his punishment to a fine, or in some cases, to imprisonment on board ship whereas the Coast Guard proceeding is not against the person nor against his money, but against his papers. This is the grossest fiction that can be imagined because if a seaman's papers are either suspended or revoked, he is certainly hit in the pocketbook because he cannot pursue his livelihood to which every free American is entitled.

In addition to action by the master and the Coast Guard, the seaman may also be prosecuted by the criminal authorities of the United States. In the cases in which we represented the seamen, we have learned that the proceedings are a mockery and have resulted in nothing but contempt by the seamen for the Coast Guard. The hearings are conducted in the fashion of a "kangeroo" court and the man is actually railroaded. The punishment depends upon the whim of the hearing officer and for the same identical offense two hearing officers would differ greatly in the punishment which they mete out.

The hearings that are conducted in foreign countries usually result in a severe suspension or actual revocation of the seaman's papers. He is advised that he has the opportunity of procuring his own counsel but where for instance in Korea, can you get a lawyer who is familiar with the laws, both civil and maritime, of the United States? He is, therefore, by force of circumstances, deprived of adequate representation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the accused is permitted an appeal but to whom is the appeal made but the local appeals board, which is comprised of Coast Guard officers, and in the many cases that we have appealed there have been an infinitesimal number reversed.

If the accused still wants to appeal further, he can go to the Commandant of the Coast Guard in Washington. We know of very few instances where the Commandant has reversed both the local appeal board and the hearing officer. It appears that the Coast Guard likes to take care of its own and in reversing one of its officers, it feels that it suffers a smirch on its reputation.

Instead of bettering conditions on board ships, the hearing units have resulted in a great lack of discipline and resentment not only among the unlicensed personnel, but also among the officers.

The merchant marine has always been self-sufficient and has always done a good job in maintaining order and discipline aboard merchant ships. The officers are familiar with the problems of their crews, having come up from the ranks themselves. Seamen, while on board ship, are under the direct supervision and control of their officers who, in our opinion, are adequate to mete out punishment for infractions of the rules. This has worked fairly well from time immemorial and there is no reason why this practice should be changed to satisfy the greed of the Coast Guard.

We, therefore, respectifully, for the reasons outlined above, ask this committee to disapprove of this proposed bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. For the benefit of the members of the committee who came in since Mr. Volpian began testifying, he is from New York and we took him first in order that he may return. I doubt if you have all had a chance to familiarize yourselves with his statement, but do any questions suggest themselves to you before he goes?

Would you like to amplify your statement in any way?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Why, yes; I would like to amplify it a little.
Mr. GRAHAM. All right.

Mr. VOLPIAN. I want to point out that the penalties imposed by the Coast Guard hearing units are so far out of proportion to the offenses committed as to become ridiculous. For instance, we will assume an electrician aboard ship does not find his way back to the ship in a foreign port. I think it natural, he cannot speak the language, does not know the country nor the customs, and may have had some drinks, which add to his confusion. He comes back half a day late. He is immediately fined 2 day's pay by the captain, which amounts to $20, and he is then brought before the Coast Guard and penalized.

Mr. KEATING. Can he get both, be punished by his own captain and by the Coast Guard, too?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes. That is why we are charging double jeopardy. So, when his papers are suspended by the Coast Guard that means $325 is added on to the $20, which in effect means the man is out $345 for taking half a day off. We think that is ridiculous and out of proportion altogether with the gravity of the offense.

Mr. KEATING. Is that a standard procedure?

Mr. VOLPIAN. That is a standard procedure, and also for the Coast Guard officers to come aboard the ship and look at the log book for offenses after a man has already been punished.

Mr. GRAHAM. But is this not a thing where time is an element, with the necessity for handling ships promptly when they are in a foreign port and the master is confronted with engagements he must keep and, therefore, he must keep strict surveillance over members of the crew? Mr. VOLPIAN. The average crew is 35 to 40 men. There is no man in the crew absolutely indispensable. The work can always be carried

on by somebody else. In the case of unlicensed personnel there are at least four officers ranking them who could see that the work is carried on. There are very few delays in sailing because men are late. It is a very rare thing that the loading or unloading of cargo would be held up on account of the crew being late.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Lewis, do you have some questions?

Mr. LEWIS. How frequently do we have such occasions as that? Is it just a customary thing in foreign ports for men to be late?

Mr. VOLPIAN. I would not say it is customary, but it happens often. I think there is a reason for it. A man that goes to sea does not have the same life as a man ashore and very little or no opportunity for the usual recreation as we know it ashore. All they see for weeks is the ocean. When they get into foreign countries no one invites them to their home. They cannot have a normal man's recreation that a person living in this country has. As a result they usually find their way where there is music, bright lights, and a little entertainment and they, having lived a fairly clean life for say the past 3 weeks, the booze usually takes an unusual effect on them, and in some cases the man is unable to come back to the ship on time. We accept that as part of the industry. It is something that has been going on since the days of Columbus that seamen, by the very nature of their work and character of their work, makes them a different class.

The point I want to bring out is that the ships operated very well before we had the Coast Guard in the picture. They are altogether unnecessary. If a man misses the ship entirely, the ship would still continue to run.

Mr. GORSKI. Mr. Chairman, just a question.

Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead.

Mr. GORSKI. In the event of a man not appearing on time there is always a substitute to take his place?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GORSKI. It does not necessarily mean that all work is held back because one man does not show up. Is that correct?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you finished?

Mr. VOLPIAN. There are a few things.

Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead with anything you want to say.

Mr. VOLPIAN. I want to add the merchant seamen themselves are very angry about this extra procedure, a court on top of a court. Mr. LEWIS. Pardon me. May I ask this? Do you mean they punish them twice?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEWIS. Is that standard procedure?

Mr. VOLPIAN. That is standard procedure. The captain can log a man, which he usually does, and the Coast Guard gets the information from the log book showing he has been fined and they give it a hearing.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is confined principally to a fine in money, not imprisonment?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Not imprisonment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Half a month's salary, or a month's?

Mr. VOLPIAN. A month's salary, or maybe 6 months' salary.
Mr. LEWIS. That does not strike me as equitable.

Mr. VOLPIAN. It is not equitable and that is why we are so anxious to eliminate the Coast Guard from the picture. It is superfluous. Mr. LEWIS. How long has that been going on?

Mr. VOLPIAN. It began in the early part of the war. Our understanding was it was a wartime measure. When the war was over the Coast Guard came to Congress and asked for permission to continue this.

Mr. GRAHAM. That was necessary at the time-secrecy, and so forth.
Mr. VOLPIAN. I understand that.

Mr. KEATING. In the days of Columbus before we had a Coast Guard the captain had complete control over his crew. Is that not the tradition of the sea?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. And the discipline was taken care of by the captain. Is that right?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Has this question of double jeopardy ever been raised in a legal manner? Do you know?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir. The only right to appeal these cases is right within the bounds of the Coast Guard itself. We cannot go to a civil court on it.

Mr. KEATING. It has never been carried to a civil court?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir.

Mr. KEATING. So no civil court has ever passed on the question as to whether this does in law constitute double jeopardy?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Does your organization itself ever discipline its members for such conduct?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir. I stated previously we do have means for doing that at every meeting.

Mr. GRAHAM. What are the nature of the fines within your own organization? Approximately what do you fine them?

Mr. VOLPIAN. What we do, we usually fine them. If it is a very serious offense we might fine them $25 or $50. We might put them on probation for a couple of years. If they violate their probation then there will be a stiffer penalty.

Mr. GRAHAM. In extreme cases, do you ever take extraordinary steps?

Mr. VOLPIAN. We expel them.

Mr. KEATING. You have in fact done that?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, suspended them for 99 years.

Mr. KEATING. Is there any limit to the penalty which the captain can impose?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes; the law does specify certain limits.

In extreme cases the captain has almost absolute power to use his own judgment. In the case of a man taking a day off the law limits the amount he can fine him to 2 days' pay for the first day and 4 days' pay for the second day.

Mr. KEATING. Where is that law found?

Mr. VOLPIAN. That is title 46 of the United States Code, Shipping.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Reeves.

Mr. REEVES. My question has been covered in part by what the gentleman from New York has asked. Do you consider that the

74403 -48-ser. 17-3

ļ

penalties available to the ship's master are sufficient penalties for all types of violations?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes; I do. The ship's master can put a man in irons and can put him on bread and water for continued disobedience.

Mr. REEVES. Do you consider, on the basis of the experience from the Coast Guard's participation in the disciplinary system, that the ship's captain or ship's master has been disposed to impose lower sentences, lesser punishment on the theory that there is to be another penalty imposed after the Coast Guard hearing?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir; I do not think so. The reason for it is the way the Coast Guard becomes apprised of the fact that there was a case of misconduct is through the captain's log book, which has the offense and fine imposed.

Mr. REEVES. My point is, you do not think the ship's captain lightens the penalty in anticipation of further penalty by the Coast Guard? Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir.

Mr. REEVES. Do you know of any cases where a penalty more severe than 2 days' pay or 4 days' pay has been imposed by the captain such as putting a man in irons, and such offense was followed by further severe penalty by the Coast Guard?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes; almost all cases.

Mr. REEVES. Have you in mind a specific case where the man was put in irons by the captain and further punished by the Coast Guard?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes. I have a number of cases where the gravity of the offense was such it justified the captain to put the man in irons. The Coast Guard usually revoked the man's papers entirely.

Mr. REEVES. Does the degree of the offense have anything to do with the procedure which the ship's captain adopts?

Mr. VOLPIAN. There are such things as the Coast Guard recognizing the fact that a man's offense might not be considered grave enough to suspend his papers. In those cases they will admonish the man not to do it again, or else they will give him a trial, find him guilty, and give him probation.

Mr. REEVES. As I understand their action is limited to action against papers?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. REEVES. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Were you accompanied by someone who desires to be heard?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir; he has gone.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Volpian, it is possible your testimony is directed more toward abuses that exist under the present system than it is to the precise issue before us.

As I see it, if this bill is not passed, then the men will be subject to the appropriate procedure before a civilian body. Is that not your understanding?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, my understanding, or rather the position of our union, is that we do not believe that any further hearings should be held against the men of the merchant marine. We regard it as double jeopardy in that the law already takes care of whatever punishment is necessary in the case of offending seamen.

Mr. KEATING. May I direct a parliamentary inquiry to the chairman? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.