Lapas attēli


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 bilì, 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 exclusively doing this type of work and on top of that there is certainly some additional figure. There may be a minor saving, but certainly the saving of money does not seem to be the reason.

Mr. SPINGARN. I would like to ask Captain Richmond if he would make a statement on the economy feature.

Mr. GRAHAM. All right.

Captain RICHMOND. Gentlemen, prior to December 11, of last year, we had handled these hearings by hearing details or hearing units in domestic ports and foreign ports. The officers attached to those details, many of whom were former employees of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, although Řeserve commissioned officers under war authority, were actually designated as both what we call a hearing officer and an examining officer. I want to change those names to conform to APA and what is called an examiner and investigator. We had approximately 100 of those officers, although the number varied. The problem of the APA requirement that your examiner be separated entirely from the investigatory function was recognized, so on December 11, last year, in order to comply with the APĂ, we appointed 29 officers to act as examiners.

We recognized that in some ports many of these officers could not be kept busy all the time

Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt. Do those 29 cover 43 ports or only 29?

Captain RICHMOND. They cover a limited number of ports. They cover 9 of our 14 districts and the foreign ports.

Mr. GRAHAM. I see.

Captain RICHMOND. One of the problems that confronted us at that time was we were unable to get an interpretation of what duties were not inconsistent with examining work. Therefore, we were reluctant to appoint any officers until we had to actually hear a case in ports where there was a small number of cases, for the reason we simply did not want to see them be on something that would preclude them from doing other duties.

So, as I say, we appointed 29. Since that time we have gotten rulings that these officers can work on annual or other inspections of unmanned vessels, special surveys and dry dock inspection, inspection and waivers, inspection of land boilers for other Government agencies, and investigation of our own Coast Guard personnel. There would be nothing in that which would be inconsistent with their sitting as an examiner on merchant marine.

We estimate of those 29 probably 50 percent of their time is utilized in merchant marine hearings. Nine of those people are overseas.

Mr. KEATING. Those 29 in the past had been engaged exclusively in this kind of work?

Captain RICHMOND. The first few days after December 11, I would say yes, but since we received the interpretation of other duties they have been utilized in such duties also.

Mr. KEATING. I understood you at the last hearing when the question was put to you how many men were exclusively conducting these hearings, you said there were 29.

Captain RICHMOND. I realize that I gave that impression. The 29 were those that have been designated. The only ones eligible to hear these cases, but since that we got the rulings on what additional work they were able to do.

Mr. GRAHAM. That clarifies it, captain.

Captain RICHMOND. I might say that if the 20 in the United States were on a 50 percent basis, that would be in effect 10 people doing exclusive hearing work. Just from a practical standpoint let us assume there are 10 people exclusively, on a man-year basis.

Now, as far as the proceedings themselves are concerned, an impression has been given to the committee that the way these cases arise is that the Coast Guard examines the logbook and then determines whether they will have a hearing. That, sir, is not true. A case can arise by that method, I agree, and if we look at the log and see a specific case which we think justifies a hearing we proceed.

Mr. KEATING. Do you in fact inspect the logbook?

Captain RICHMOND. We have to a certain extent. Now not to the extent we did during the war when certain types of cases were very prevalent. In other words A. W. 0. L's were important when it caused a vessel to miss a convoy. When a vessel missed a convoy it could mean the loss of lives, loss of the cargo, or ammunition that would not get to the fighting front. We got complaints from the officers of the ships in some instances, and in some instances the unions themselves reported the dereliction of men and officers.

Mr. KEATING. What proportion of the cases which you try involve officers?

Captain RICHMOND. Of the 3,762 hearings that had been held in the 12 months from March 1946 to February 1947, 735 hearings were on holders of licenses, and 3,027 were on holders of certificates. Thirty-three licenses were revoked and 602 were suspended; 171 certificates were revoked and 2,810 were suspended.

Mr. SPINGARN. The officers have licenses and the men certificates.
Mr. KEATING. Was anybody ever found not guilty?
Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir.
Mr. KEATING. How many ?

Captain RICHMOND. Of the officers approximately 100 were dismissed. These are actual hearing cases.

Mr. KEATING. The complaint was dismissed?

Captain RICHMOND. The complaint was dismissed after the hearing. For certificated men approximately 288 cases wer

dismissed. Mr. KEATING. Now there were 100 of the 700 cases of officers dismissed?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir. Now, those were actual hearing cases.

Mr. SPINGARN. Of course, perhaps it should be noted there were the hearing cases, but there were some 18,000 investigations.

Captain RICHMOND. There were 4,307 investigations based on complaints against licenses and 13,578 unlicensed personnel.

Mr. KEATING. That never came to a hearing?

Captain RICHMOND. No, these figures I gave you first were the proportion that came to a hearing.

Mr. GORSKI. Down to 3,700 ?

Captain RICHMOND. Down to 3,700, yes, sir. Immediately a complaint is made to the local office, an investigating officer is dispatched to the vessel to investigate and find out if there is any basis for the complaint.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt. I do not like to throw you off, but it is somewhat new to all of us. Would not the logbook of the ship

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »