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

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.

Mr. KEATING. For the purposes of enlightenment, what would happen if we did not pass this bill?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, first of all, it would curtail the Treasury Department in its request for funds. They have come in, in order to establish this, to secure funds from the Appropriations Committee, and if they do not it will limit the operation of the Coast Guard to that extent. Mr. KEATING. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. On our part, if we fail to recommend it, then there is nothing further for the full committee to do and it ends right there. Mr. KEATING. I do not make myself clear, perhaps. The people will still be subject, will they not, to a review of any proceeding by a civilian agency?

Mr. GRAHAM. So it is my understanding. As I recall, Mr. Volpian, the testimony of one of the officers when you were not present, was that there was no denial of a civil remedy. That is my recollection and there is some confusion on that point. You are of the impression and so stated, that is denied here. On the other hand, the Coast Guard officials have testified there is a right of civil appeal. That has to be resolved some place or worked out. If you are right, they are wrong, and vice versa, of course.

Mr. KEATING. I am bound to say I am quite impressed on this double-jeopardy point. I do not know the law on this. I assume we are presumed not to know the law, but as I see it this witness' very convincing testimony is directed to that question more than to this precise bill before us here.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would you be satisfied from your viewpoint and of your men if you had knowledge that there would be a right of appeal from the action of the Coast Guard?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir; we would not.

Mr. GRAHAM. You are striking at the Coast Guard, are you not? Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GORSKI. What you want is to revert to the situation or standing the merchant marine was in before the war?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GORSKI. Is that it?
Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. You want to have the status quo as it was before the war?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. And under that there was no review to the action taken by the captain, except the captain's boss might overrule him. Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. KEATING. Who would be his boss?

Mr. VOLPIAN. The United States Shipping Commissioner who is in charge of these matters. He is regarded as the authority on affairs between seamen and their employers and if a captain unjustly logs a man, the man has a right to appeal to that commissioner, and he is a qualified man to decide whether the penalty was a fair one or not.

Mr. KEATING. And, if he sees fit, would he take evidence in the case? Mr. VOLPIAN. The only way that he can change the decision of the captain, aside from the decision being illegal, is to ask for an arbitration, and both parties, both the captain and offending seaman, must sign that they will accept the judgment of the commissioner as final. Mr. KEATING. That is part of the contract with the union, is it?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No; that is part of the law. That is in the law.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Volpian, it boils down to this, let us see if we get this right. You have stated that within your own ranks you have discipline and disciplinary measures that you invoke and apply? Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Prior to taking over of those functions by the Coast Guard during the war this was a matter handled by the captain, and you were satisfied with that.

Now then, with the advent of the war, the Coast Guard took over and, of course, it is realizable why they did it. The war was on. The necessity for secrecy for the mobilization of ships, transports, and the like.

Your argument today is by reason of that, in substance, there has been no improvement of discipline in the men, but there has been a harshness applied by an accumulation of penalties. Is that your argument?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes. In addition to that I would like to add-
Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead.

Mr. VOLPIAN. There is a great deal of resentment among the men, many of the men, by reason of the extra penalties.

Mr. GRAHAM. Do they feel that they are under the surveillance of the Coast Guard?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. And you object to that?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GORSKI. You feel, Mr. Volpian, during the war it was absolutely necessary to have this under the Coast Guard?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I go a step further and say under the present disturbed conditions throughout the world and the uncertainties we are passing through today, do you, or not, think it wise to continue this until at least temporarily conditions level off and settle?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir; I do not think there is any necessity for it. At the end of the war we found there was a lessening of offenses. During the war they were hysterical and neurotic and they were likely to commit a lot of offenses they would not now. They were not likely to commit so many under peacetime conditions and, I think, the record of the Coast Guard will show there are many less offenses.

We think it was unfair during the war that some of these offenses were not judged with a certain amount of understanding, and some of the boys did crack up during conditions at the time and we do think a little more understanding would have helped.

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to ask a direct question. Is there any infiltration of Communists within your ranks?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No; not in ours.

Mr. GRAHAM. Not in yours?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No, sir.

Mr. KEATING. You would not accept a Communist in your union, would you?

Mr. VOLPIAN. No; I would say a Communist would be afraid to try to get into our union.

Mr. KEATING. If you found a man were a Communist, would it be grounds for expulsion from the union?