Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

temporary wartime measure. Naturally, the merchant mariners did not object and I would say in all cases were in favor of subordinating many of their civilian rights and liberties to the perusal and discipline of a military organization in order to accomplish victory. And it cannot be disputed that the Coast Guard constitutes a part of the military forces of the United States operating under the Treasury Department in peacetime and as part of the Navy in wartime, so that the net effect of the temporary assumption of authority by the Coast Guard over the merchant marine, was simply the subordinating of the merchant marine to naval orders during hostilities-a perfectly intelligent, proper, and constitutional step.

But like other historical events, the war came to a close and it was rightful to expect that the Coast Guard would return to operation under the Treasury Department and that the merchant marine would revert to its proper place in the order of things-the Bureau of Merchant Marine Inspection and Navigation of the United States Department of Commerce. The Coast Guard did become disengaged from the United States Navy and again is operating under its constitutional authority, the Treasury Department. But there, the return of occupations to their normal sphere stopped. Because of some slip-up or skullduggery, the merchant marine was not replaced under its proper authority, the Department of Commerce, where it had operated successfully for many years. Exactly what occurred, I do not know, but it is my understanding that the United States Coast Guard, which replaced the revenue cutter service and the life saving service and which constitutes a branch of the land and naval forces of the United States at all times, did not number among its prewar personnel of some 15,000, even one rear admiral. The commandant, I believe, was ranked a captain. After the war got into full swing, or should I say more correctly, after the Coast Guard "rank" got into the swing, the service rated at least one full admiral, not to mention a number of admirals of junior rank.

An explanation of the possible question, "What does this sudden number of high ranking officers signify?" It might be stated that the significance is that-aside from the prestige and remuneration— there must be a greater personnel, numerically speaking, in order to prevent the Coast Guard from becoming what is known as top-heavy. Of course, more personnel means that more outlets must be found to justify the expanded personnel. In short, the top men of the Coast Guard, far from frowning upon taking jurisdiction over the merchant marine, welcome the opportunities presented thereby.

Nonetheless, let us consider how the Coast Guard operates in its jurisdiction over the merchant marine. The Coast Guard is a military organization, a branch of the Armed Forces of the United States. Its very fiber is military. It is organized and it is operated in a military fashion which alone should disqualify it as the agency to act as overseer of a civilian industry such as the merchant marine. Professional military men's outlook differs from the attitude of civilians. The letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States recognizes this is one respect in that the Chief Executive is the President, a civilian; again it is recognized by the letter and spirit of the Constitution in that the military is subordinate to the Congress of the United States, a civilian body.

In their military style, the Coast Guard has set up hearing units, among whose functions is the disciplining of merchant seamen for infractions which they commit while acting under the authority of their seamen's certificates, licenses, or other maritime documents. The rules of evidence applicable at hearings are expressly directed to follow naval courts martial. An entry in a log book of and by itself is presumptive evidence of the facts it sets forth. In other words, an accused can be and often is convicted and his right to earn a living is suspended or revoked upon no greater evidence against him than some writing on a piece of paper made by a ship's master never present before the Coast Guard officer who reads, hears, and determines the matter. And this can occur even where the accused testifies in person and is supported by witnesses, since in such circumstances credibility is para

mount.

Another phase of the present Coast Guard jurisdiction that smacks of an anomaly is double jeopardy. Under the maritime law, the master of a vessel may discipline members of the crew for infractions of the law by way of fine and otherwise. In addition to this punishment, the merchantman is subject to hearing and further punishment by way of suspension or revocation (in effect a further fine) by the Coast Guard.

While the Coast Guard controls the merchant marine, nothing but strife and rancor can be looked for among the personnel of our vessels. The officers and men are called upon, in circumstances repugnant to their ideals and sense of justice, to appear before a military body in a military court martial atmosphere for the purpose of determining whether or not a seaman should continue to have the inalienable right to earn a living.

Every seaman is mindful of the maritime law and the criminal law of the United States applicable to his occupation and rebels at the idea of being prosecuted and tried by a military organization.

In closing, may it be said that the Coast Guard should be returned to its rightful and commendable duties of life saving during peacetime and of Navy operation during wartime. The merchant marine, a commercial enterprise, should be returned under the Department of Commerce where it rightfully belongs and which by its set-up and personnel, is fitted to control merchantment intelligently, fairly, and in keeping with the intent and spirit of the Constitution of the United States.

Now, gentlemen, I would further like to amplify that statement with a few other comments.

There is no other counterpart where a maritime organization has jurisdiction, not even in atomic control or research. I do not know of another man that has done a more outstanding job during the war than Rear Admiral Emory Land. Admiral Land, at a meeting of the Propeller Club in 1945 stated, and I think I can quote verbatim: "I see my good friend Admiral in the audience, and I know

he isn't going to like what I am going to say, but I think it is about time the Coast Guard got out of the merchant marine."

Let me point out how these hearings boards are constructed. Prior to the war the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation was open to the best men of the industry. By that, I mean under the civil service rules before a man could become an inspector he had to prove himself by being at sea on a merchant ship and he must have had a

license for 1 year, or to be an inspector of hulls, he had to be a master for 1 year, or sailed at least 1 year as chief mate. These men were brought up in the industry. Their whole life was in the industry. They know the industry. They know the men who are competent. Since the advent of the Coast Guard that is becoming less and less apparent with the result that we can see in a very short while the affairs of the merchant marine being conducted entirely by men who themselves have never sailed a day in their lives on board a merchant ship. I have had the extreme displeasure of appearing before some of these hearing units. You find the presiding judge is also the jury. Sure the man has the right of appeal. There are so many appeals the Commandant is so bogged down with work that decisions are months getting back. Why are those appeals? Because of the rancor that exists between the Coast Guard and the merchant marine. There is no merchantman that objects to anybody reviewing his record. I want to reiterate no one is more interested in maintaining discipline than the Masters, Mates, and Pilots. We do not stand for any drunkenness or inefficiency.

During the war the Coast Guard were intrusted with conducting examinations and issuing licenses, and although the training was not thorough, it must be said to their credit they did an outstanding job. I am not ready to say our organization is not ready to say because a man has a license he is competent any more than you gentlemen who are members of the bar, to say every member of the bar is competent. But because the Coast Guard issued those licenses they are placed in the position of, if they declare a man incompetent, who gave him the license in the first place? I would say under these conditions they cannot possibly be impartial. That is how these boards are constructed.

I say this, in any group of officers, if a master is involved in a dispute with the chief mate, anyone would give the master the benefit of the doubt, and the chief mate with the second mate, and second mate with the third mate, and on down, officers and crew, which immediately puts the officers against the unlicensed personnel.

If an officer does not like the way they are conducting themselves he says "I will have you brought before the Coast Guard," and the Coast Guard is being made the whipping boy. We do not think they belong in that picture. If they were out of the picture many conditions would disappear. I would say the worst elements would disappear. During the war they were hastily trained. It was just something to do. We had hundreds of boys 16 to 18 years of age, being too young for military service, come into the Merchant Marine. Because of their extreme youth and inexperience they are liable to go ashore and run afoul of the law. I cannot say we are not going to continue it, but I think we can handle it more effectively with the log book, with the penalties we may impose and furthermore with a better cooperation with the unlicensed personnel unions.

The cooperation between the officers' union and the unlicensed union is becoming better and better. I attended a meeting of one of the unlicensed unions less than a week ago and I noticed with a great deal of pleasure that charges had been preferred against various individuals in different ports and recommended that they be put in the "social register" for 99 years, the "social register" being a joking term.

So, I would definitely say with the Coast Guard hearing units out of the picture the number of cases would disappear to a minimum. I will go further than that. From time to time we have an unfortunate marine disaster. Who does the Coast Guard call upon then for its outstanding counsel? Who did the Coast Guard have as their senior judges and examiners in the case of the fire on board the Erickson? Two former merchant marine officers. There is no question about it, these questions go beyond the scope of men who have not sailed aboard a merchant ship. If a man is brought up on deck before a man who has sailed on merchant ships, he knows whether there is any lying; and another thing, the average seaman has to go outside and get counsel. In many cases the unions do not get counsel because they believe this is not a matter for attorneys and not a matter of law. This is a matter of conditions involving life on ships, because if a man is delinquent, he is delinquent, and ought not to resort to legal loopholes to get out of it.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Would you mind if I asked you a question, Captain? Mr. Chairman, may I ask?

Mr. GRAHAM. Certainly.

Mr. KEFAUVER. These hearings units, how many members do they consist of?

Captain ASH. The majority of them consist of one judge and jury. He is the senior judge and prosecutor. The prosecutor may often be the investigator.

Mr. KEFAUVER. What is the usual rank of the Coast Guard officer? Captain ASH. Depending upon the seriousness of the case. I would say the majority of them, the ranking officer would be a lieutenant. Mr. KEFAUVER. Do they wear uniforms when they hold hearings? Captain ASH. Not in all cases. Very, very seldom since the war. Mr. KEATING. It was very much better so far as you are concerned before 1943 when these hearings were not being conducted by the Coast Guard?

Captain ASH. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Is that all, captain?

Captain ASH. I have two more notes I would like to cover very briefly.

Mr. GRAHAM. Proceed then.

Mr. LEWIS. Who was responsible for placing the merchant marine under the Coast Guard?

Captain ASH. Under the Second War Powers Act, when it was necessary to place all vessels of war under Navy control, particularly the convoying of cargo and vessels. The administration of inspection, port security control, that was all turned over to the Navy, who turned it over to the Coast Guard.

Mr. LEWIS. That was during the war?

Captain ASH. That is right.

Mr. LEWIS. This is peace, or at least we are not shooting any

more.

Captain Аs. That is right, sir.

Mr. LEWIS. How does it come the Coast Guard still has jurisdiction?

Captain ASH. We do not know. We want to know why it has not gone back to the Department of Commerce where we feel it rightfully belongs.

Mr. LEWIS. By "we" you mean the merchant marine?

Captain ASH. The men of the merchant marine; that is right. Mr. KEFAUVER. Do you think the officers of the merchant marine would feel the way the men do, or do they differ with the position of the men, or do you know?

Captain ASH. I do not understand your question. Do you mean the officers on the ships feel the Coast Guard should be out of the merchant marine?

Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes.

Captain ASH. The answer is an emphatic yes. They have gone on record for it by a referendum vote many times. I mean the merchant marine.

Mr. KEFAUVER. You are a captain?

Captain ASH. I have been in command of ships in the early part of the war and the latter part of the war. At the beginning of the war I was executive officer at both officer candidate schools for the merchant marine, which we took over from the Coast Guard. We were continually having difficulties with the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard had embarked on a program of raising the professional standards of the men. To that we subscribed. However, that could be done during peacetime. We advocated that. We were caught between two problems; one, to teach the men what would be required to know of the Coast Guard requirements and, two, teach them what they would have to know to be of use to the master of a ship. We were continually going down to the Coast Guard to get revisions.

I have had the unique opportunity to have handled those men. The biggest majority of the merchant marine officers are men that have been brought up before the forecastle. Starting with the day of issuing wartime certificates they were hastily trained. We were sure they would have had some experience under the department regulations and a minimum amount of time was required before you could stand for the next highest grade, and only as of a few days ago a rule came out these wartime regulations would be discontinued, effecive May 1.

Captain Richmond has stated, I believe they had hearing units in foreign countries. During the war many ships did not come back for months, just shuttled back and forth across the channel, coast wise. It was necessary to establish offices in foreign countries. Now I am sure it is not going to be necessary much longer and we will have absolutely no use or need for maintaining Coast Guard offices in foreign countries. I cannot see any purpose for it.

Mr. LEWIS. How long have you been on the sea?

Captain ASH. I started going to sea, sir, in 1927. I sailed as a deck boy for the munificent sum of $20 a month. I received my first license as a third officer in 1933 and continued to work up and received my first master's license in 1939.

Mr. KEATING. But you were a master until last year?

Captain ASH. The last vessel I left was October 17. I had been in command pretty steadily.

Mr. GRAHAM. I hate to break this meeting up.

Gentlemen, after consultation with fellow members we can meet on Friday, May 2. We can start at 10:30.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10:30 a. m., Friday, May 2, 1947.)

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »