Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

CONDUCT OF DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS BY COAST

GUARD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 345, Old House Office Building, Hon. Louis E. Graham (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. GRAHAM. The committee will come to order, please.

In order to accommodate Mr. Volpian, who resides in New York, we are going to take him out of order so that he may be free to go when he has to. Mr. Volpian.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. VOLPIAN, WELFARE CHAIRMAN, SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

Mr. VOLPIAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Joseph H. Volpian. I am chairman of the Seafarers International Union of North America and reside in New York.

The Seafarers International Union of North America number approximately 90,000 unlicensed seagoing personnel whose sole means of livelihood are derived from their service on merchant vessels, which sail on all oceans and the Great Lakes. Our membership has a very real interest in the proposed bill, H. R. 2966. The writer of this brief has been in charge of the welfare department of the union since 1943. His office is at the union headquarters in the city of New York. Part of his duties as welfare officer includes his appearance before the Coast Guard hearing units on behalf of accused seamen. He has appeared in at least 200 cases of alleged misconduct before the Coast Guard. The writer is present at the request of his union to oppose the passage of the above bill.

The union is as much interested in disciplining its members for infractions of the rules and laws aboard vessels as are the Coast Guard and the operators of the ships. We have a set-up in our constitution where anybody who is charged with misconduct aboard a ship can be tried and punished according to the gravity of his offense. We realize that when a seaman does not perform his duties as he should, it places an extra burden on his fellow crew members and at the same time injures the reputation of the union of which we are all proud. The writer has been going to sea since 1923 and has sailed in the black gang or engine room department of ships during this time. He has come to know seamen, being one himself. He is familiar with the

duties of the officers and the problems that exist aboard ships and, therefore, can, without fear of contradiction, speak upon maritime matters from the viewpoint of the unlicensed personnel.

The merchant marine has always been a civilian occupation long before our government was formed. The only time it might have been considered an arm of the military was during the last two wars when it came under the jurisdiction of the Navy. It differs from a military organization in that there is no drafting or enlistment among the men. A seaman can sign for one trip and at the termination of the voyage quit or make another trip if he sees fit. If his superior officer does not choose to employ him for a further trip, he can let the man go. There are no provisions made for pensions or any other benefits that a soldier or sailor would be entitled to as a result of being a member of the armed services.

The United States merchant marine has always been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce. This, in our opinion, is the proper place where it belongs because all the activities of the merchant marine has been in aiding the exchange of goods through water-borne commerce from one country to another and from one coast to the other. The Congress has passed certain laws which have been on our books for many years, whereby adequate provisions have been made to enforce discipline. For instance, if a crew member without permission stays ashore one day from the vessel, the master is allowed to "log" or fine him 2 day's pay for the day he missed. There is a logging or penalty provided for every infraction of the rules. In addition, if the offense is serious, the master can place the man in irons and feed him on bread and water for as long as he sees fit. The master may restrict a seaman to the vessel and not allow him shore liberty to which he would be entitled when the ship reaches a foreign port. If in the event a seaman misses his vessel, he immediately forfeits all his pay together with all his personal belongings. No where else in the world are such strict penalties imposed, for these infractions. If a person who works ashore fails to appear on his job for a day, all he loses is his day's pay. If he decides to quit the job for some reason, he does not forfeit his back pay or his personal belongings but is entitled to them regardless. The law also provides that the master is in sole command of the ship and all of his crew is answerable to him. The law, while being very strict. in its provisions, has been adequate to handle all problems that arise on a vessel. In addition, a seaman is answerable if he commits a felony to the Federal authorities and is subject to severe fines and imprisonment if he violates the law.

At the inception of the last war, the late President of the United States, realizing that victory could not be attained except with the cooperation of the merchant marine and to expedite the transfer of war goods to our allies, placed it under the jurisdiction of the Navy. This was not done to discipline seamen because discipline has always been maintained on merchant vessels, but it was done primarily for the purpose of the movement of ships where the military authorities deemed they were necessary.

The Coast Guard, likewise, which is regularly attached to the Treasury Department, was also put under the jurisdiction of the Navy and the Navy turned the merchant marine over to the Coast Guard.

With victory won, the Coast Guard was turned back to the Treasury Department, but it refused to relinquish its hold on the merchant marine but instead, is trying to keep it under its own jurisdiction. There is a very good reason for this attitude.

During the war, the Coast Guard became top heavy with admirals, captains, commanders, and lieutenant commanders. Some of these people are desirous of holding on to their positions, knowing full well that they could not get comparable salaries and conditions in civilian life as they receive by being officers in the Coast Guard. More "brass" in the Coast Guard means that they must find some excuse to justify keeping these officers in the service. In short, it is desirous of maintaining its hold on the merchant marine to keep these men in their positions. All this means that the taxpayers will be required to spend unnecessary millions of dollars because not only are these extra officers required, but likewise, a full office force must be maintained, such as stenographers and clerks, all of which has heretofore been handled by the Department of Commerce at a fraction of what it would cost if the Coast Guard took over.

It is well known that the United States Coast Guard is a military organization. It was formed for the purpose of saving lives at sea along our coasts. It has done a commendable job and in the writer's opinion, it should devote all its time and attention to just this service as no other group can perform these duties as well as the Coast Guard. From what we have read and learned, there is no civilian occupation or industry under the authority of a military organization during peacetime. It is repugnant to all our concepts of freedom and liberty. The founders of this country have rightly placed the President of the United States, a civilian, as head of the armed forces, as it is well known that the attitude of the military is far different from that of the civilian. There is an almost indescribable caste system amongst the armed forces. The officers look down on the ordinary soldier or sailor and in the same way, the officers of the Coast Guard have shown no sympathy to the merchant seaman.

During the war, the Coast Guard set up what it called "hearing units" for the purpose of further disciplining seagoing personnel in addition to the penalties provided by law as outlined above. These units work somewhat in this fashion. An officer would examine the logbook and speak to the officers of the vessel concerning any infractions. Assuming a seaman was guilty of coming aboard ship an hour late, this would be entered in the logbook and the man would be fined by the master. The investigating officer would then issue a subpena to the man notifying him to appear at the office of the Coast Guard. In the meantime, his wages would be held up contrary to law as provided in the statutes that a seaman receive his pay within 48 hours after the vessel discharges its cargo. He would then He would then appear before the investigating officer who, just reading the logbook, determines if the man should be tried. If he finds in the affirmative, he then issues a set of charges or an indictment and informs him that he can get counsel and that he can subpena his witnesses. By the time this advice is given to the seaman, his shipmates, having been paid off, scatter to all parts of the country and it is a virtual impossibility to procure witnesses in his own behalf. The investigating officer then takes over the role of examining officer or prosecuting attorney. He chooses his

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

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »