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 Reserve 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. O. 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 were 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

be the best primary evidence in the way of written facts you can get to start the investigation.

Captain RICHMOND. It is presumptive, sir, but we prefer to get the testimony of witnesses in spite of what has been said. I served overseas in this type of work and I relied on the testimony adduced before me by the witnesses far more than any log statement, because the statement has been made if a master logs a man it may be second hand înformation. It is, however, an official record and the district court accepts it.

Mr. KEATING. A man has no way of logging the master.

Captain RICHMOND. A man has no way of logging the master, that is true, sir. In making investigations, however, our officers have been advised not simply to look at the logbook, but to talk to all interested parties. They have been instructed to talk to the delegates of the union. The union has a delegate on board ship.

Mr. KEATING. The union has a delegate on board ship?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, usually three, the black gang, the deck, the steward's department, and the deck force.

Mr. GRAHAM. The black gang?

Captain RICHMOND. I am falling into marine terms. That is the engine room. The investigating officer has the right to decide there is no actual basis for the complaint or he can, in fact, admonish the man. If he thinks there is a prime facie case, he may set the case for hearing before what is now the examiner.

Mr. KEATING. I would appreciate it if you would pursue those cases of complaints being made and those that went to hearing, and divide those between officers and men.

Mr. GRAHAM. That would probably take a little time. Let him submit it for the record.

Captain RICHMOND. I will be glad to.

Mr. GRAHAM. All right, go ahead.

Captain RICHMOND. We attempt to hold the hearing as soon as possible, acknowledging the rights of all of the parties.

Now, during the war when ships had to get out, if necessary, we would hold the hearing on board ship if it was desirable. Our officers would go out in the evenings in order to hear the case when they had witnesses present.

The big difficulty, as Mr. Spingarn pointed out in his statement, is that if a ship comes in it has to be paid off in 48 hours and your witnesses are gone. Our attempt has been to get the case heard when people who know about it are present. At the time of setting this hearing we serve the person charged, as we call him, with charges and specifications, which inform him of the offense he is charged with, tell him of his right to counsel and his right to subpoena witnesses in his own defense and advise him of all of his rights.

As I say the case is heard in the office ashore, if it can be done, because it has a more dignified setting. In many cases you are able to get witnesses to the office when you cannot get them aboard ship.

Mr. KEATING. The Coast Guard office?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir; the Coast Guard office ashore. The examiner is another officer. In the present system he is not familiar with that particular case. He has not been advised of the case. He is selected, not as indicated here by the person who was going to have

the case heard after the investigation. He is one in the group of examiners. The cases are more or less rotated around. If it is a case involving the engine room, he would have an officer who has been a former engineer. We assign him. We do not assign an engineer officer to a case involving a deck matter, but it is a case of administering the thing within the availability of your personnel.

Mr. KEATING. What proportion of those officers that hear those cases have been seamen themselves?

Captain RICHMOND. At the present time of the group, I would say that better than 50 percent have been former merchant marine officers. To guess how they came, were seamen prior to obtaining their papers, I would not be able to estimate. About 90 percent of the present examiners are former merchant marine officers.

During the war, in order to get this larger number we needed, we mixed lawyers with these former merchant marine officers, now reserve officers, hoping it would be a case of mutual education; that the merchant marine officers could impart a certain professional knowledge in the sicence of the seagoing profession to the lawyers who also were reserve officers, and that the lawyers might educate the former merchant marine officers and other officers in the legal aspects of the cases in order that we would maintain throughout a uniformity of decision and all of the attributes of a fair hearing. That was our objective.

In addition to that, there were a few officers, like myself, who were regular Coast Guard officers who had had legal training and had been seagoing officers, who were brought in to leaven the whole group.

Mr. KEATING. What about these lawyers, are they still there? Captain RICHMOND. Most of them being reserve officers we demobilized them, they having taken their points and asked to be released to inactive duty. Of the 29 people we have now there are probably 10 percent of that group. In addition to that there are a number still working on the investigative side of the picture, that is, the presentation of the case to the hearing officer, the examiner.

The investigating officer acts as prosecutor, as has been indicated, in presenting the case before the examiner. The examiner hears the case and decides the case on the merits. Both sides present their witnesses, testimony is taken and the decision is rendered by the hearing officer. Generally, since the cases are not too involved, the decision is rendered right there as to whether the man's certificate or license shall be suspended or revoked.

Mr. KEATING. Are those duties of the investigating officer and the examiner interchangable, the examiner becoming an investigator and vice versa?

Captain RICHMOND. That was the point I was trying to make. They were prior to December 11, last year. They are not now. Commander Edwards and I served overseas together. If he had a case that went to hearing in Cardiff and needed me I would go down from London to Cardiff and vice versa.

Mr. KEATING. And meaning no disrespect to you in any way, you would both go to lunch together?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir; that was the only practical way. Since December 11, to conform with the Administrative Procedure Act, that procedure has been discontinued.

Mr. KEATING. So that all investigating officers are separate?

Captain RICHMOND. Separate, apart, and in different offices entirely.

I do not want to make this a rebuttal, but the statement was made here of an electrician who might be absent half a day and suffer extreme penalties. I suppose there might have been such a case. I can say from my own experience in the foreign field with the 21 officers under me, that the penalty that was indicated this morning would never have been imposed. In the first place, I am inclined to think the investigator, if he had investigated that case, would never have set it for hearing. Second, if it had gone to a hearing, I cannot conceive of any examiner I had, or myself, suspending that man's certificate unless he was an old offender. I mean by that we had a record of previous offenses. Further, if suspension were ordered the man probably would have been placed on probation.

Öf the first five or six thousand cases we held under this modified procedure-incidentally this was not something new as far as the law was concerned; we did modify the procedure of the former bureau and streamlined it-80 or 90 percent we placed on probation. You could not overlook the fact a man had failed to join his ship.

On the other hand, we found the primary responsibility was to keep the men aboard ship and keep the ship moving. We recognized another thing. There were a great many young men going to sea. We felt in many instances they had stepped out of line through youth and inexperience. We felt if we could say "you should not have done this; we will suspend your certificate for 30 days and put you on probation" we had in effect accomplished the desired end."

Mr. KEATING. You are a lawyer?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. What do you say about the double jeopardy?
Captain RICHMOND. I have never given-

Captain HARRISON. Could I make a statement there. I do not think it is double jeopardy. In some instances it might result in double punishment. Double jeopardy would apply only to the criminal offense for which a man might be imprisoned.

Mr. KEATING. Can not the captain put him in the brig?

Captain HARRISON. He can put him in irons on board ship. That is usually done where it is necessary to protect others on board. If someone goes haywire, intoxicated, and so forth, to save him from fighting.

Mr. GORSKI. Climbing into a fight.

Captain HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Judge, you think the only reason it would not be considered double jeopardy would be because it is not a criminal offense? Captain HARRISON. I am inclined to think so.

Mr. KEATING. The principle involved would be the same as in the case of a criminal offense. It would be like getting stuck for a judgment for $100 on one cause of action and then on the same cause of action before another court later be stuck for $1,000.

Captain HARRISON. It would constitute double punishment.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is what was in my mind when I was asking Mr. Volpian about the fine imposed by the captain and the Coast Guard if it was both in the nature of a fine and not imprisonment. I had the same theory. It is double punishment, not double jeopardy.