Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. And he would be expelled?

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes; he would.

Mr. GRAHAM. Any further questions?

As I explained to you, Mr. Volpian is from New York. We shall try to give him full opportunity to be heard and then hear from the Treasury and Coast Guard witnesses.

Mr. VOLPIAN. I would like to say one or two more words.

Mr. GRAHAM. All right.

Mr. VOLPIAN. We like to think the uniform of the United States is something to be respected. Under the present hook-up or lash-up, as you have it, there is a great deal of resentment among the men of the merchant marine, and it is breaking down the loyalty of men to their country, and they are beginning to feel they are being unreasonably persecuted in peacetime, and since we are of the opinion that proper economy of the country is one of free enterprise, we insist that free labor go along with it.

Mr. GRAHAM. Are you an affiliate of the CIO or AFL?

Mr. VOLPIAN. AFL.

Mr. KEATING. Do you represent the same union which the gentleman did who spoke to us on Monday?

Mr. GRAHAM. Captain Ash.

Mr. VOLPIAN. No. Captain Ash is from the Masters, Mates, and Pilots. They are an AFL affiliate.

Mr. KEATING. I see. Yours is the Seafarers.

Mr. VOLPIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. All right, thank you. We will resume with Mr. Spingarn's testimony.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. SPINGARN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. ALFRED C. RICHMOND, CHIEF, PLANNING AND CONTROL STAFF, COAST GUARD, AND CAPT. KENNETH S. HARRISON, CHIEF COUNSEL, COAST GUARD

Mr. SPINGARN. May I make a preparatory statement perhaps to orient this thing a little?

Mr. GRAHAM. All right.

Mr. SPINGARN. We believe the net result of this bill will be economy and efficiency. The Bureau of the Budget shares this view, and it was indeed at their insistence in the first case that this bill was proposed and an exemption was sought rather than a request for an appropriation to hire civilian examiners.

We are not dogmatic about the matter. We are here at the instance of the House Appropriations Committee to get a decision from you gentlemen as to whether we should get an exemption, whether civilian examiners under the Coast Guard should hold these hearings, or whether they should be held by commissioned officers of the Coast Guard.

Mr. KEATING. Would you address yourself to this question of double jeopardy?

Mr. SPINGARN. As far as that is concerned, the law was written by Congress.

Mr. KEATING. We make mistakes.

Mr. SPINGARN. It goes back to 1871, although in its present broad terms, it was revised in 1936, by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. It seems that is a matter for the courts to decide.

Mr. KEATING. Have they ever decided it?

Mr. SPINGARN. As far as I know, they have not decided it; no. But I think it is a mistake to say the seamen do not have an appeal to the courts. In the first place, I think they always had an appeal to the courts and if there is any doubt about it the Administrative Procedure Act settles that because section 10 provides it.

Mr. KEATING. Has there ever been an appeal?

Mr. SPINGARN. Not so far as I know.

Mr. GRAHAM. You heard Mr. Volpian's statement?
Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Without engaging in any controversy between you and him, there is one thing I would like to get clear in my mind. Speaking from the viewpoint of the Coast Guard, do you feel, "excessive harshness" is used in dealing with these cases, or have they been dealt with on the individual merits of each case?

Mr. SPINGARN. I am glad you brought that up, Mr. Chairman. Naturally we are in the position of an agency defending its own procedures, and I suppose any statement we made on that would be subject to scrutiny as not being objective. We think our proceedings have been fair. I would like to say this, the gentleman who was testifying was opening up a much wider issue than is involved in this bill, as Mr. Keating pointed out. The question they are opening up is whether the Coast Guard should have anything to do with these proceedings. As has been pointed out, until March 1, 1942, these hearings were conducted by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation of the Department of Commerce. They were transferred to the Coast Guard under the Second War Powers Act and that transfer was made permanent by Reorganization Plan No. 3, which became effective June 16, 1946.

I may say the whole issue of whether these proceedings should be under the Department of Commerce or the Coast Guard was very lengthily fought out at that time last year and there was extensive testimony both ways on it and the Congress decided they should be under the Coast Guard permanently.

I may also say that change met with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. KEATING. When was that?

Mr. SPINGARN. June 1946.

Mr. GRAHAM. Last year.

Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Was this thing all argued out last year?

Mr. SPINGARN. Yes; it was argued out at great length in connection with Reorganization Plan No. 3 last year.

My own opinion is that no agency that administers these hearings is going to be very popular with the seamen, and in support of that statement, I would like to point out that last Monday Captain Ash of the Masters, Mates and Pilots said:

* the Coast Guard should be returned to its rightful and commendable duties of lifesaving 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 merchantmen intelligently, fairly, and in keeping with the intent and spirit of the Constitution of the United States.

However, I have before me a mimeograph statement of the CIO maritime committee which we were furnished by that organization, which they intend to present. It was intended to be presented last Monday. They criticized the conduct of hearings by the Department of Commerce quite as vigorously as the conduct of hearings by the Coast Guard. I read from that:

* * the board, in the main, were composed of retired captains, chief mates, chief engineers and first engineers; and they seized upon this occasion to employ R. S. 4450 as a means of upholding steamship companies, and the officers of the vessels, in their disputes with unlicensed crew members, in the miscellaneous and varied situations which arose.

They quote from a book published in 1938, in which it says:

A portion of the blame for the unsafe conditions of American ships was directed at the Department of Commerce which, through its Bureau of Navigation, was supposed to see that vessels and crews complied with navigation laws. The activities of the bureau fell into such disrepute that no commercial underwriter would accept its findings as a basis for insurance.

And further:

Not only did they seem to favor ship operators in the inspection of hulls, but they also began to favor them by using R. S. 4450 as a weapon to be applied against merchant seamen when labor disputes arose.

Thus there seems to be some indication that whatever agency is holding these hearings is likely to be criticized.

Mr. LEWIS. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead.

Mr. LEWIS. The thing I have been wondering about, and have been ever since the hearing the other day on this bill, is whether it is right to have the Coast Guard in this picture at all. Now, Congress decided that it was last year, but this Congress can reverse the decision. Mr. SPINGARN. That is quite true, sir.

Mr. LEWIS. And it seems to me there has been a pretty good case made out here for reversing it.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I interject a comment before you answer, Mr. Spingarn. Throughout all this reorganization we are confronted with an amazing task in our own committee when we learn 1,700 bills have been introduced and referred to this committee alone. It is a matter of trial and error. I am not testifying. I am merely giving you some information. They now feel that sufficient time has not yet elapsed for a fair trial. Unquestionably at some future date revisions and changes must be made. The point they make is, have any of these had a fair trial and would it not be better to go along under present conditions? That is the picture I wanted you to get. Mr. KEATING. May I ask our distinguished chairman if he knows or recalls what caused the Congress to decide to put this under the Coast Guard instead of the Department of Commerce?

Mr. GRAHAM. There were three reorganization plans submitted affecting the executive branch and we had our own reorganization plan for the legislative. This came up under No. 3 at that time, and I think I am correct in this that, due to uncertain conditions, to fear,

and to the state of the world in general, it was thought wise to do this until we settled down.

Mr. KEATING. It was a matter of security.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. That security was more likely to be attained by having this done by the Coast Guard than by Commerce?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; as one of the established agencies of the Government of long standing. Their reputation was impeccable.

Mr. LEWIS. In other words, it was keeping the Government's hands on as much as possible. Now, if you believe in that theory, that is well and good.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I supplement what I said?

Mr. SPINGARN. It would still be under the Government anyway. Mr. GRAHAM. A number of the war powers acts have not yet been repealed in their entirety. That could be done in two ways, through the President by proclamation by declaring the war over, or by the Congress taking action. The President requested that Congress take no action. We are still operating under it. We had it yesterday under rent control, and that is what is wrong in the situation. There is hope on the part of the legislators this will continue until we get to a solid basis. What you are driving at is the question of directives and what authority the Government arrogates to itself.

Mr. SPINGARN. I should say that prior to 1903 these functions were in the Treasury and they were transferred to Commerce where they remained until 1942, when transferred to the Coast Guard.

Mr. LEWIS. Do you mean the same identical powers which you are exercising were exercised then by other Government departments? This question of double jeopardy

Mr. SPINGARN. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 for the first time made these hearings applicable to seamen as well as licensed personnel. From 1871 until section 4450 was passed it had been applicable to licensed personnel, that is officers. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 expanded that to include unlicensed personnel.

Mr. GRAHAM. Is this not the honest fact? We are all trying to get to an honest solution of this. With the building of more vessels and offenses becoming increasingly more numerous, it took wider control and care not to have these offenses. If we were to drop back and not have a Merchant Marine, it would probably drift back into the easy

status.

Mr. SPINGARN. You are quite right. Congress has consistently recognized the Coast Guard as the central safety-at-sea agency. In 1915 it combined the Revenue Cutter Service and the Life Saving Service to make the Coast Guard. In 1939 the Lighthouse Service was placed in the Coast Guard. In 1942 the merchant marine hearing and inspection functions were transferred to the Coast Guard and this was made permanent in 1946.

Mr. GRAHAM. The whole purpose throughout that was to increase efficiency and decrease operating costs.

Mr. SPINGARN. That is right.

Mr. LEWIS. I do not see how you could get any decrease in cost or increase in efficiency. Now, the captain on a ship, and I have been on sea voyages and I know how they conduct them, knows that is the proper thing to do for any offense, but what about this double jeopardy?

I think that is simply unconstitutional and I do not think we have the power to give the Coast Guard or anybody else the authority to come in and impose a second sentence.

Mr. SPINGARN. We, of course, are administering the laws as we find them.

Mr. GRAHAM. We have placed the burden on you.

Mr. SPINGARN. I have not examined the constitutional question, but I do not believe there is any legal question of double jeopardy. Mr. LEWIS. It is this Congress which is at fault.

Mr. KEATING. The last Congress. Not this one. The last one. Mr. SPINGARN. Since 1871 these laws have been in effect.

Mr. REEVES. To clarify the position of my colleague from Ohio, I would like to ask him this question: It is your point the authority or function should either be taken away from the master of the ship and vested entirely in the Coast Guard or vice versa ?

Mr. LEWIS. That is right.

Mr. REEVES. And that should be subject to some review or appeal. Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Or follow Mr. Volpian's suggestion and let it remain with the master and let the Coast Guard have nothing to do with it? Mr. LEWIS. That is right. The Coast Guard comes into this picture secondarily and both the witness on behalf of the masters, mates, and pilots last Monday and the witness now on behalf of the seafarers feel that the Coast Guard should not be in this. It seems to me they have a pretty good case.

Mr. GRAHAM. Granting that is true, but we put this burden on the Coast Guard.

Mr. LEWIS. That is the reason I said it is the fault of Congress and we ought to change it.

Mr. GRAHAM. All right, go ahead Mr. Spingarn.

Mr. SPINGARN. I would like also to point to the statement made by Senator Cordon in the Senate on April 9. Senator Cordon is chairman of the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations and he introduced a companion bill to H. R. 2966, namely, S. 1077 on April 9. It was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and at that time he said, and I am referring to page 3321 of the Congressional Record of April 9

Mr. KEATING. This is in the Senate hearing?

Mr. SPINGARN. No; on the floor of the Senate. He said:

It will be a waste of money to require the Coast Guard to employ civilian examiners because in many instances their time cannot be fully occupied in the work for which they would have to be employed, and their time would be utterly wasted. Quite evidently, the situation as it now exists was not foreseen at the time that the Administrative Procedure Act was before the committee and was enacted into law. The Coast Guard will require about $280,000 annually in addition to its other necessities in order to maintain this group of civilian examiners. If, on the other hand, the Administrative Procedure Act can be amended so as to exclude the Coast Guard from its operation in connection with this handling of inspection of merchant marine this amount can be saved each year. Mr. KEATING. With all due respect in the world for the distinguished Senator, I am not impressed with the argument we are going to save any substantial amount, and to talk about saving $280,000 the full amount is entirely erroneous. We have an admission here there will be $150,000 that is now being spent by the Coast Guard officers who are