Lapas attēli

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 department.

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 ?


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

[blocks in formation]

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 Commerce.

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 practica 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 enot 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 violation. Then, the traffic department, through the highway department, would summons the man for hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not his license should be revoked. The point is under that no imprisonment attaches.

Mr. SPINGARN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Haddock has also made considerable point of the fact that the Administrative Procedure Act was enacted on accound of abuses under this particular statute we are dealing with.

I want to say it is our firm opinion this is not the case. The abuses to which the Attorney General's Committee refers in 1940 were corrected long before the Administrative Procedure Act was passed in 1946. It is our opinion that had it not been for Reorganization Plan No. 3, which put these functions permanently in the Coast Guard, that is under the prior existing statute these hearings would have been exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act and that this committee and the Senate committee were under the impression that these hearings were thus exempt when they considered the bill that became the Administrative Procedure Act.

Mr. GRAHAM. Do you believe the situation became aggravated by reason of the World War and the large number of men going into the Merchant Marine which necessitated or resulted in a large number of violations?

Mr. SPINGARN. Unquestionably that played a large part.

In connection with the log book, Commander Edwards of the Coast Guard is here. I think it would be well to have a statement from him regarding the log book, since he is a former merchant marine captain. Mr. GRAHAM. We shall be glad to hear from him.

Commander EDWARDS. I would like to supplement Mr. Haddock's statement when he was telling you about who makes entries in this log book, because he is mistaken. The third mate or second mate or engineer never make any entries.

Mr. KEATING. Is this official log book the only one ever placed in evidence ?

Commander EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. The deck log book and engineer log book are never put in evidence ?

Commander EDWARDS. No; except in the case of a casualty.
Mr. KEATING. In case of casualty.

Commander EDWARDS. Insofar as actions as to the vessel are concerned. There are many things that go in here, much of which is put in in the handwriting of the masters. It includes not only a statement of misconduct, but statements of account. It includes certain entries as to the time of the happening and matters such as closing watertight doors.

On the front page there are excerpts from the existing law relating to those matters which must be entered in this book. I will just read a few, such as deaths, births

Mr. KEATING. Births?

Commander EDWARDS. Yes. In other words, a complete list of everything the master must enter in the log book.

Under Section 4596 of the Revised Statutes, there is an excerpt of that law which sets out those penalties which the master can impose on a seaman for any of the offenses which fall within the purview of this act. For instance, I am inclined to believe the impression is here that the master sets up and has a court martial or trial on his own account at which evidence is taken. Such is not true. If a man goes AWOL and fails to show yp the absence is noted. The head of his department, the first assistant engineer, or chief mate notifies the master and the master says "When he comes back, bring him up.”. And he is confronted by the first mate. The master says “Is that right?” He admits or denies that it is true. The master makes an entry, “Joe has been absent from his ship" and fines the man so many days pay.

He is supplied with a copy after the statement is signed by the master and attested to by the chief officer. The master is required to enter in the book the comment of the individual after having read this and being supplied with a copy and at that time he can enter any complaint about the procedure he wants to.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt.
Commander EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Then the admissions made by the accused are then entered and that is available later when the inspector comes in?

Commander EDWARDS. It is entered and also attested to by the person present when entered.

Mr. KEATING. Is the accused advised of his rights and does he know his rights?

Commander EDWARDS. That is explained to him. He may make an explanation.

Mr. KEATING. He may not know he has the right to make an explanation. He may have been sick on shore and may

not know. Commander EDWARDS. He makes a statement right there in front of the master.

Mr. KEATING. He does if he thinks of it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Commander, may I interrupt you a moment.

I think this is what we are driving at. Under our criminal procedure in the various States, before a voluntary statement is made, the accused is always warned of his rights, whether he wishes to make a statement and that he has opportunity to have counsel. That is what you are driving at?

Commander EDWARDS. The logging of AWOL is purely an employer-employee relationship. There is no criminal statute involved.

I can just go over some of these offenses for which a master can penalize a man. There are many things that happen aboard ship a master can do nothing about. For instance, if the chief mate came up to the master and said "Joe Blow hit me in the face,” the master can do nothing

Mr. KEATING. As a practical matter what would he do?

Commander EDWARDS. He would probably call the man up and say “Listen, keep your hands to yourself.” If there was any doubt as to the man's sanity, or danger to other people, he might place him in confinement.

Mr. REEVES. Are you drawing an analogy to a situation where an employer docks an employee for having missed a day's work?

Commander EDWARDS. Yes; except in this case it is covered by law.

Mr. REEVES. Your point is the master's authority extends to the civil penalty?

Commander EDWARDS. Yes, sir.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »