to the Coast Guard, as a purely important war measure, we were in accord with it. We were perfectly willing to give up our rights as civilians in an effort to aid in our winning of the war. Every other Federal agency which received, as a part of the war, certain civilian functions, have returned those functions to civilian authority, but today the only one that remains in the picture is the Coast Guard. Now, we have another serious matter in the Coast Guard in the picture. They must always be cognizant of one important thing. When a man is on trial for inefficiency or for failure to do his job, as his license calls for, the Coast Guard is just as much on trial as the individual, because they issued the license, and I would like to see some organization other than the one who issued the license, because if they feel so inclined, in covering up something, they can very easily do it. Whereas, an outside organization would not have any such

interest.

I can recall a few cases-I could submit hundreds of them, but I will point out one-a case involving a shipmaster who had a grounding in a port in Italy. We appeared in his behalf before the Coast Guard hearing unit. He had counsel there and the prosecutor demanded that he take the stand for cross-examination to defend himself. His counsel and the hearing officer said, "You cannot put that man on the stand to testify against himself." The prosecutor said, "Oh, I am going to get him on the stand. We are going to insist upon it. We have questions to ask him." The hearing officer said, "You had plenty of time to examine him in the preliminary investigation." A recess was held. It seems that after lunch, the pressure had been put on this hearing-unit officer who was himself a former merchant marine master and in a very quick, hurried manner, the case was practically closed. So they considered him negligent and suspended his license for 30 days. We hold that such a thing is a travesty upon justice.

The accident to this vessel cost several hundred thousand dollars to repair. It practically tore the bottom out of it. If he was negligent, if we was wrong, in the accident, then a 30-day suspension is a travesty upon justice. It is absolutely not any punishment to fit the bill. On the other hand, if he was innocent, and we contended that he was, then he should be completely exonerated and told to go away. He was then told he had the right of appeal. He discussed it with his wife. The man was very tired from the war. He said, "I need a rest. What is 30 days' suspension? I will take a vacation and it will all be over by the time I get back. The company is not holding anything against me. The company does not say I am at fault. The company is not going to punish me with loss of employment and loss of a job."

But, the Coast Guard will.

We do not want any repetition of any such thing, gentlemen. As I say, if possible, compare the conduct record of the merchant marine in point of numbers with the conduct record of any other city. Take a seaport city, find out how many felonies they have, how many misdemeanors, how many violations of various types of law, and I think you will find that in comparison the conduct record of the merchant marine is far superior because of the amount of self-discipline.

In the military organizations, they give an order and it is obeyed immediately; it is not questioned. In the merchant marine it might

be questioned. So, the question becomes a question of good leadership. You can lead merchant seamen a long ways. You cannot push them an inch. As a merchant seaman, we know that. We were brought up the same way ourselves, and, therefore, good shipmasters, men who are good leaders, have no difficulties aboard their ships. Men who are hastily trained and who are not good leaders have such disciplinary problems. Thank goodness, the bad leaders are being weeded out of the industry.

We have no objection whatever to any authority who will review cases or any authority that will discipline. However, we want it to be strictly a civilian organization, completely out of the jurisdiction of any military organization.

I hold, gentlemen, that the discipline of the merchant marine is not at its lowest ebb, but is improving by leaps and bounds.

Mr. GRAHAM. We will excuse you for the moment and let Mr. Hand, a member of Congress, testify and they we will call you back.

STATEMENT OF HON. T. M. HAND, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. HAND. My name is T. M. Hand. I am a member of Congress and a member of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Chairman of the subcommittee on Coast Guard. My interest in this subject, of course, arises from the capacity just described.

It seems to me it must be completely clear that there must be some means of promulgating and enforcing proper rules for the discipline at sea. It seems to me equally clear, particularly since my observation of the conduct of the Coast Guard in the discharge of any of their duties, including this one, that the Coast Guard is probably the ideal agency for that purpose. I doubt very much if the Coast Guard necessarily seeks this authority. It is not a question of giving some authority to the Coast Guard that they want. It is a question of doing something which the Nation needs and which the merchant marine, I think, needs. I believe that this whole question can be divided into not more than two parts. No 1: Are these rules necessary and are the rules reasonable and have they been properly conducted? The second question: Does this proposal deviate or violate the Administrative Procedures Act? I think all of us are zealous to preserve that.

În the first place, I am not going to take your time, nor my own. I have another meeting.

With your leave, I want to leave this brief statement for the record. I do want to call attention, particularly, to this, with respect to the regulaions under which the Coast Guard has been operating.

In the first place, I think it will be shown that they made quite a careful study of this situation and of administrative procedures and the regulations before they commenced their duties.

Now, the regulations, published by the Coast Guard on October 1, 1947, printed in the Federal Register-with your leave, I would like to leave a copy for the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

I have heard the opponents of S. 1077 refer to the action of the Coast Guard against the licenses or certificates of merchant marine officers and seamen as "star chamber proceedings." I find this term surprising use the procedure

developed by the Coast Guard for investigating and holding hearings in cases of misconduct, incompetence, negligence, and violations of the navigation laws by merchant seamen is in fact a model of fairness.

When the Coast Guard became responsible for the administration of Revised Statutes 4450 they made a detailed study of the practices and procedures in use and took into account the report made by the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure in 1940. The procedure which was placed in effect early in 1943 as a result of these studies was in substantial compliance with the present requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The functions of investigation and adjudication were separated. The seaman against whom the complaint was made was given opportunity to explain and refute before charges were preferred. If, after complete investigation of the case, the investigating officer found that there was reason for disciplinary action beyond an admonition, a hearing was held before an examiner who had no previous knowledge of the case. The investigating officer subpenaed not only the available witnesses for the prosecution but also those desired by the person charged. The hearings were open and the person charged was advised in advance of his right to counsel who could be of his own choosing or if he so desired a Coast Guard officer would act in his behalf. The rights of the person charged to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, or to appear in his own behalf were scrupulously observed and the rules of evidence were much more closely adhered to than is required under administrative procedures. If the person charged was found guilty by the examiner he had a right to appeal the case within 30 days and for this purpose he was furnished a complete copy of the record and given any assistance he needed in entering his appeal.

The number of cases handled under this procedure has been reported to you by my colleague, Mr. Latham, but I feel it is worthwhile to refer again to the fact that only 10 per cent of the many thousands of cases handled were appealed and that in no case did a Federal court reverse or modify the decision of the Coast Guard.

The regulations published by the Coast Guard on October 1, 1947, for the investigation of casualties and the suspension and revocation of merchant marine licenses and certificates are practically the same as those used throughout the war, and with your permission I offer a copy of them for the record. They were made up and promulgated after a public hearing where all parties in interest were given a chance to express their views. No objection to the regulations was offered by any representative of the licensed officers or unlicensed seamen. As a matter of fact, the only objection of any party in interest concerned a minor point in the disposition of records.

I should like to point out that the authorization contained in S. 1077 is the only thing required to permit the prompt and fair handling of merchant marine disciplinary cases in a manner which would be in complete compliance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

TITLE 46-SHIPPING

CHAPTER I-COAST GUARD: INSPECTION AND NAVIGATION

PART 137-SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS

The regulations in Part 137 which were suspended by the Commandant, U. S. Coast Guard, on August 26, 1942 (7 F. R. 6778, 46 CFR, Cum. Supp., Part 137, note), are canceled and the following regulations are prescribed which shall be effective 31 days after date of publication of this document in the Federal Register:

137.09-50 Witnesses.

137.13-1

SUBPART 137.15 EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL

137.15-1

LIABILITY

Referral to Attorney General.

137.09-52 Testimony by interrogatories and 137.15-5 Use of judgments of convictions. depositions.

AUTHORITY:§§ 137.01-1 to 137.21-5, inclusive, issued under R. S. 4450, as amended, 49 Stat. 1544, sec. 5 (e), 55 Stat. 244, and Public Law 404, 79th Cong., 60 Stat. 237, 5 U. S. C. Sup., 1001 et seq., 46 U. S. C. 239, 367, 50 U. S. C. 1275, and sec. 101, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, 11 F. R. 7875.

SUBPART 137.01-AUTHORITY AND SCOPE OF REGULATIONS

$137.01-1 Authority. The regulations in this part are issued in accordance with the authority in Title 46 U. S. Code section 239 (R. S. 4450), and Public Law 404, 79th Cong. (60 Stat. 237, 5 U. S. C. 1001 et seq.).

§ 137.01-5 Disciplinary proceedings. Suspension or revocation proceedings shall be instituted by an investigating officer in any case in which it appears, as a result of any investigation made under Part 136 of this subchapter, or otherwise, thatthere are reasonable grounds to believe that a licensed or staff officer or holder of a certificate of service is incompetent or has been guilty of misbehavior, negligence, or unskillfulness or has endangered life or has wilfully violated any of the provisions of Title 46 U. S. Code sections 170, 214, 215, 222, 224, 224a, 226, 228-234, 239, 240, 361, 362, 364, 367, 371-373, 375–382, 384, 385, 391, 391a, 392, 393, 399, 400, 402-416, 435-440, 451-452, 460–463, 464, 467, 470–481, 482, 489-498, or Title 50 U. S. Code section 1275, or any of the regulations issued thereunder.

SUBPART 137.05-INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS

$137.05-1 Designations. An investigating officer is designated in writing by the District Commander in domestic units and by the Commandant in foreign ports.

§ 137.05-5 Investigating procedures. (a) The investigating officer shall investigate marine casualties and inquire into complaints of misconduct, incompetence, unskillfulness, negligence, endangering of life, or wilful violation of law, which if substantiated could serve as the basis for charges under Title 46 U. S. Code section 239 against any person who is serving under a license of certificate of service issued by the Coast Guard, or issued by any predecessor authority. Upon the completion of such investigation or inquiry the investigating officer has five alternative courses:

(1) If he finds that there is no basis for the complaint; that there is no jurisdiction; that the case is of trivial importance; that there is no reasonable expectation of obtaining necessary witnesses, or that the accused is not or probably will not be available, he may take no action and recommend closing the case. (2) If he finds there is basis for the complaint but the violation is not of a serious character, or that it is of a serious character but with extenuating circumstances, or where the ends of justice will be best served, or where the exigencies of the situation are such that formal proceedings would be impracticable, he may orally admonish the person and shall subsequently advise him of the facts or conduct found to be the basis for the complaint and which will be made a matter of record.

(3) If the investigating officer finds adequate basis for a complaint and the person under investigation, or witnesses are not then available, the case may be referred to the Commandant or to any other port or district for completion of action.

(4) If the investigating officer finds evidence of physical incompetence he may accept voluntary surrender of a license or certificate until such time as the person concerned produces a certificate of medical fitness from the United States Public Health Service or other competent medical authority.

(5) If the investigating officer finds reasonable ground to believe that a licensed or certificated person is incompetent or has committed some act or failed to perform some duty which would be the basis for revocation or suspension of a license or certificate, he may prefer charges.

(b) In the conduct of an investigation, the investigating officer shall have the power to administer oaths, subpoena witnesses, require persons having knowledge of the subject matter of the investigation to answer questionnaires, and require the production of relevant books, papers, documents, licenses, certificates, or other records. The investigating officer conducting such investigation shall, where the licensed officer or certificated man whose conduct is being investigated is available, advise such person informally of the substance of the complaint against him and afford him an opportunity at that time to make such comment in refutation of such complaint as he may desire.

(e) Having concluded that there is reasonable ground to believe that there is basis for action, the investigating officer shall institute an appropriate proceeding against the license (s) and/or certificate(s) and present the evidence acquired to an examiner.

§ 137.05-7 Voluntary surrender of licenses and certificates to avoid hearing. (a) Except as provided in § 137.05-5, any person whose conduct is under investigation or who has been served with charges and specifications may voluntarily surrender to the investigating officer his licenses and/or certificates in preference to appearing at a hearing under Title 46 U. S. Code section 239 to answer charges against him.

(b) In such cases the person surrendering the licenses or certificates shall sign a statement containing the following stipulations:

(1) That the licenses or certificates are voluntarily surrendered in preference to appearing at a hearing to answer charges against him;

(2) That all title to such documents is permanently relinquished; and, (3) That the right to a hearing, appeal, and judicial review are waived. $137.05-10 Instituting proceedings. (a) To institute such proceedings the investigating officer shall prepare charges and specifications and serve the same upon the holder of the license (s) and/or certificate (s) involved, and at the same time he shall furnish the appropriate examiner with a copy of such charges and specifications and transmit the case for hearing by the examiner. The examiner shall fix the time and place of the hearing and furnish information thereof to the investigating officer who shall summon the person charged, subpoena witnesses, and otherwise prosecute the case.

(b) A charge is a designation of an offense in general terms. The offense must be one within the purview of Title 46 U. S. Code section 239 and of the regulations promulgated thereunder. It is permissible to prefer as many charges as may be necessary to provide for every possible contingency in the evidence. Under no circumstances does a charge constitute evidence of guilt, nor may any inference of guilt be drawn from the fact that licensed or certificated personnel have been charged. A specification sets forth the facts which form the basis of the charge and any charge may be supported by one or more specifications. Its purpose is to enable the person charged to identify the offense so that he will be in a position to prepare his defense. The specification shall state:

(1) Legal authority and jurisdiction;

(2) Time and place of offense;

(3) Ultimate facts; and,

(4) Only one offense in any one specification.

A notice of the time and

$ 13.705-15 Service of charges, specifications, etc. place of hearing and a copy of the charges and specifications shall be served upon the person charged either by personal service or by registered mail with return receipt required, sufficiently in advance of the time set to give such person a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense. When personal service is made upon the person charged, the officer or employee making service shall exhibit the original of the notice to the person charged, read it to such person if he cannot read,