take place that are simply noted in the log for information purposes in case something arises in connection with them later and they are forgotten-not forgotten, but no punitive action is taken, but they are matters the master is familiar with and he gages them with regard to their weight on conditions aboard the vessel and he is the best one to judge that situation. If he wanted to take action, he would take it. He does not need the Coast Guard. Mr. GRAHAM. Have you anything, Judge Hobbs? Mr. GRAHAM. The question is this. Here we are dealing with laws of the sea, admiralty law. It so happens I have been United States district attorney at Pittsburgh and have had some experience in handling admiralty cases and when they use the logbook, when it is introduced as a witness against the seaman, is it not as a matter of fact more in the nature of an indictment or information? It is offered as an initial proceeding upon which the subsequent proceedings will be developed by subsequent investigation on the part of the investigator. Mr. HADDOCK. I would say with regard to the accidents or casualties that the fact, but with regard to disciplinary action as has been practiced by both the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation of the Department of Commerce and the Coast Guard, that was introduced as evidence and used as the only evidence. Although the seaman denies it, and produces evidence that it is not true, it is accepted. Mr. GRAHAM. If introduced in evidence and admissible in the higher grade of accident or casualty, why is it not admissible in the lower grades of misconduct? Mr. HADDOCK. Because it is only admissible when the person who made the entry is there to be questioned. Mr. GRAHAM. Then does not your complaint go to the fact that the accused is not confronted by his accuser? Mr. HADDOCK. That is certainly very definitely one of our complaints. That has been one of our complaints from the inception of this. Mr. GRAHAM. Following through on that, is there not a notation on the logbook signed by the individual by whom it is made? Mr. HADDOCK. That is always true. Mr. GRAHAM. Then the witness would at least have access to or knowledge of the person who confronts him with that. Is that not a fact? Mr. HADDOCK. I do not get that now? Mr. GRAHAM. If the entry in the log is signed by an individual, then the accused would know who had entered that, and would he not have the power of subpena in this proceeding to bring that person there? Mr. HADDOCK. The accused under misconduct has literally no power to bring witnesses in. He has a right to bring witnesses in who will volunteer to appear. Mr. KEATING. No power of subpena? Mr. HADDOCK. No power of subpena. Only the Coast Guard has power of subpena. Mr. GRAHAM. Do they deny him the right if he makes the request and asks for witnesses by subpena? Mr. HADDOCK. No, they do not deny that right, and frequently they try to get that man in. Mr. GRAHAM. That is what I understood him to say. Mr. HADDOCK. But very often they are unable to get that man in with regard to this type of evidence of the logbook. There are several kinds of entries in the logbook. For instance, entries with regard to conditions, for instance in regard to facts. For instance, when he rings for speeding up of the engines, that time is entered in the logbook. When he signals for full speed ahead or full speed astern and so forth, all of those are entered in the logbook, which are usually matters of fact and which, I assume, would stand up fairly well in any court of law because they are entries of fact. Mr. GRAHAM. That would be an admission against the man who made it. If there was an accident, that could apply equally against him as against a man in a lower rank or category. Mr. HADDOCK. I think they would. They are entries of matters of fact, and still I have sat in several hearings on accidents and those entries were brought out. I do not know of any case, even where they were accepted without cross-examination of the person making the entry, unless that person were there, and that is the only instance I do not know of cross-examination in that respect, but where a mate or seaman comes up and tells another mate and the mate tells the captain so and so or such and such and that is entered in the logbook without any cross-examination of the witness who brought it to him and that is admitted as evidence against the seaman, and neither the person transmitting the information to the person entering it in the logbook, nor the person entering it in the logbook is available and that is evidence to be used to deprive one of his livelihood that should be stopped and has to be. Mr. GRAHAM. If I correctly apprehend the testimony, there is no punishment meted out in the way of imprisonment; it is either suspension or revocation of papers, or the imposition of a fine? Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct. Mr. GRAHAM. That in a way partakes of a civil suit, which can be compensated for by the remittance of a fine or restoration of the license. He could be compensated with money and his license could be restored to continue his former status. What I am driving at is this. If that is the case, you are not afraid at the moment of imprisonment, none has been imposed up to this point, and if this committee should either amend this act or take care of the thing that you are afraid of, apparently would that satisfy you. Or do you object primarily and basically to the Coast Guard reviewing these cases? Mr. HADDOCK. As far as I am personally concerned, I want to state I do not care who reviews the case as long as he is a competent man and as long as the accused is completely protected against discrimination and he is not protected at the present time. Now that question also leads me to a question that has been raised and with which Congressman Lewis dealt with somewhat sharply. On the Administrative Procedure Act all of our unions have consistently gone on record against the Coast Guard continuing these functions. Now that is a different matter and I want to talk with Congressman Lewis at great length at his leisure, but with regard to this specific act, we definitely want the protection of the Administrative Procedure Act which it is supposed to give. We do not want that act amended in any way which will deprive merchant seamen of the protection it. was supposed to give them because I want to reiterate again that act was primarily brought about by the very thing we have been talking about. Mr. LEWIS. As to these entries made in the logbook of misconduct on the part of seamen, some of which the captain sees fit to discipline the seaman for and some of which he does not, does the Coast Guard come in and look at that logbook and prosecute the seaman for something for which the captain has not prosecuted him? Mr. HADDOCK. I do not know whether they are at this moment, or not. They were doing it. They promised to stop that about 6 months ago because they realized it was improper procedure. Whether it has been stopped I do not know. Only the Coast Guard can answer. Mr. GRAHAM. Have you finished, Mr. Haddock? Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAHAM. Will you have any other witnesses from your organization? Mr. HADDOCK. No, sir; I represent the only one. Mr. GRAHAM. So far as you know all the witnesses have been heard? Mr. HADDOCK. To the best of my knowledge. I do not know of any other CIO union. Mr. GORSKI. Who makes the entries in the logbook, just one individual, or several? Mr. HADDOCK. It can be made by any licensed officer on the deck at the time in the deck department, and any licensed officer in the engine department. Also the master and the chief mate in the engine depart ment. Mr. GORSKI. Is the information he enters in the logbook information he gets from someone else who might have gotten the information from somebody else? Mr. HADDOCK. In some cases that is true. Not all cases. I do not want to give the idea he only enters it when it is passed on. Most of the entries made in the logbook are made by people actually performing the specific task to which they are assigned. At change of watch the chief mate enters in the logbook the time he has gone off and any out of the ordinary condition that might prevail at that time. For instance, if there is a squall in the offing, or something happened on the vessel out of the ordinary, he will enter that when he is relieved by the third mate. The third mate will enter into the logbook the fact that he relieved the chief mate at such and such a time, any out of the ordinary conditions and that type of thing, and the person who makes the entry knows specifically what goes on. Now, I would say in the majority of disciplinary cases that the person who makes the entry may have some knowledge of what is going on certainly and would make it from that first hand knowledge, but frequently also entries with regard to discipline are second hand. Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAHAM. Judge Hobbs. Mr. HOBBS. As I understand your position, the fundamental objection you have to this system is that the Coast Guard examiners or proceeding officials at these inquiries are exceeding their legal authority in that they have only jurisdiction of accident cases, whereas the main objection that you have is that there is no review of disciplinary action. Is that right, or not? Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct, Judge Hobbs. That is my opinion. Mr. HOBBS. And is not whether they have exceeded their jurisdiction a point of law rather than one of fact? Mr. HADDOCK. With respect to that, I am not an attorney again, and I only want to tell you what my attorney has told me with regard to that specific question, that it is almost impossible to do anything about that situation in a court of law now. He has taken some of these cases to court and the conditions he has met lead him to believe the court is not the place to remedy this. Mr. KEATING. Do you know whether that specific legal question has ever been posed and passed upon in the civil courts? Has the Coast Guard or any other hearing officer any jurisdiction other than that given him by law? Mr. HADDOCK. No, sir. The only think I know of is one case he took to court and the ruling of the Coast Guard in that case was reversed and it did not deal with whether or not they had the legal right to move against the man. Mr. GRAHAM. Anything more, gentlemen? Mr. KEATING. Just one other question to be sure I have your point. Even on those matters where you concede that jurisdiction exists; namely, misconduct or incompetency connected with accidents, even in those cases you feel that the Coast Guard should not handle the hearings. Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Haddock, so that there may be no misunderstanding, and no witness deprived of their right to testify, we will have here the Coast Guard officers in rebuttal and we will close this hearing, so if you have any request for additional time or witnesses, make it now. Mr. HADDOCK. I have none, Mr. Chairman. If we can be of service we also want to do so. Mr. GRAHAM. Gentlemen of the Coast Guard, have you anything in rebuttal? REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. SPINGARN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. ALFRED C. RICHMOND, CHIEF, PLANNING AND CONTROL STAFF, COAST GUARD, CAPT. KENNETH S. HARRISON, CHIEF COUNSEL, COAST GUARD, AND COMMANDER R. Y. EDWARDS, COAST GUARD Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir. We will be very brief. Mr. Haddock has made two or three points which I think we should very briefly discuss. One of the points is the Coast Guard is acting without legal authority when it investigates the holds hearings in cases not involving accidents. I want to read from 46 U. S. C. 239, subsection (d), which provides that all acts in violation of any provision of various sections, and it names a great many sections of law, of this title and any regulations Issued thereunder, whether or not committed in connection with any marine casualty or accident and all acts of incompetency or misconduct whether or not committed in connection with any marine casualty or 74403-48-ser. 17-- -5 accident, committed by any licensed officer or by any unlicensed personnel shall be immediately investigated, and so forth. Mr. KEATING. You are reading from what? Mr. SPINGARN. I am reading from section 4450 of the Revised Statutes, which appears in the United States Code as 46 U. S. C. 239, and the particular subsection I was reading from was (d). I might also add that Mr. Haddock quoted at some length from a monograph by the Attorney General's committee on Administrative Procedure, which criticized the conduct of these hearings by the Department of Com merce. Mr. LEWIS That was 246 U. S. C. what? Mr. SPINGARN. 239 (d). Mr. LEWIS. 239 (d). Mr. LEWIS. All right. Mr. SPINGARN. Mr. Haddock quoted from a report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, one of their monographs issued in 1940. It has been printed as Senate Document 186, part 10, Seventy-sixth Congress. That was a criticism of the administration of these hearings by the Department of Commerce. This appeared in 1940 before the Coast Guard assumed these functions, but in that same monograph, the same group that criticized states: the statute confers upon the boards the power to investigate not only marine casualties, but also "any act in violation of the provisions of this title, or regulations issued thereunder, and all cases of incompetency or misconduct committed by any licensed officer or holder of a certificate of service while acting under the authority of his license or certificate of service, whether or not any of such acts are committed in connection with any marine casualty or accident." This provision is in practice exceedingly important, as nearly half of all cases involving trials of alleged offenders are "complaint cases," that is cases involving alleged offenses which are unconnected with casualties. So, I would say there is no legal question the Coast Guard has acted in accordance with the statute, but let us assume there is a legal question, then under Mr. Haddock's statement this would be Mr. KEATING. Has that question ever been raised? Mr. SPINGARN. Not as far as I know. Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act codifies what the scope of review would be in a case like this. That contains provisions that the court can set aside any action which is arbitrary, not in accordance with law, capricious, etc.. or unsupported by substantial evidence. Mr. GRAHAM. Of course, you must remember that Mr. Haddock is not a lawyer and familiar with these terms. Mr. SPINGARN. Right. I should also like to mention that in this whole situation you have the idea of preventative action as well as merely punishment. Take the case Captain Richmond mentioned the other day of the automobile violator. Suppose the police picked up a man speeding 80 or 90 miles an hour down a highway. There is no accident involved. However, the traffic court may well take away the man's license on the ground it should be revoked because he has indicated. he is an irresponsible person, althought no accident resulted. Mr. GRAHAM. We have an analogous situation to that in Pennsylvania. The arresting officer would arrest the man for a traffic viola |