Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. LATHAM. No; certainly not, and it is preferable to giving authority to these bright, young lawyers out of law school that don't know the difference between a forecastle and a lazarette on a ship.

I would like to say that Mr. Ellsworth Buck is very much interested. He called my office and said he could not be here until 11 o'clock.

Mr. MILLET HAND. Mr. Weichel also expressed complete support.

Mr. GRAHAM. Those are the only ones I recall who have spoken to me about it.

Have you information concerning the opposition by Mr. Walter and Mr. Gwyne! I doubt if they will be over here because of the matters on the floor. Anyway in the event we do not finish today we will carry it over until next Wednesday.

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. I would like to appear.
Mr. GRAHAM. Now, who is the next witness

STATEMENT OF CAPT. A. C. RICHMOND, CHIEF, PLANNING AND

CONTROL STAFF, ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. HENRY T. JEWELL, CHIEF, MERCHANT VESSELS PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Captain RICHMOND. The Coast Guard has no prepared statement to submit.

The Secretary of the Treasury has reported favorably on S. 1077 which in effect does accomplish the same purposes as the bill formerly considered by this committee, H. R. 2966.

Mr. GRAHAM. After having made a comparison of these two bills are you prepared to state wherein you think S. 1077 is a superior bill or meets the objection to the former bill?

Captain RICHMOND. I think it does. Considerable testimony was taken on the former bill. I would like merely to add in the record what has taken place since we appeared on H. R. 2966.

As of December 11, 1946, we conformed to the terms of the Administrative Procedures Act insofar as separating the functions of what is referred to of investigating officers distinguished from examiners.

We continued to hold hearings under R. S. 4450 until June 11, 1947, at which time we discontinued holding the hearings,

Subsequent to that we have investigated a number of cases. We have tried to administer R. S. 4450 on the principle in minor cases of admonishing the people involved, if there is indication that they have transgressed, and on the more serious cases we hold the record. Those more serious cases are building up at the rate of 100 a month.

Mr. GRAHAM. And at the moment how far are you behind on your schedule?

Captain RICHMOND. 700 serious cases.
Mr. GRAHAM. That really demand your immediate action?

Captain RICHMOND. At the same time we did that we have attempted to obtain funds for the hiring of civilian examiners in the event that neither of these bills become law.

Mr. GRAHAM. Had you exhausted your appropriation before?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, that is correct, sir. It is really a limitation under our appropriation. We had originally in our 1948 appropriation a request for funds. That was rejected by the Appropria

tions Committee on the ground that H. R. 2966 was then before this committee. When H. Ř. 2966 was tabled we had a supplemental request before Congress and we included it in the supplemental amount, but again the request for funds was rejected.

They indicated that we could hire civilian examiners from our available funds, but since that imposed a limitation on the number of civilians we could employ, and by the terms of the provisions of the report they indicated they felt any employment would be temporary, we were in a position where we would have to discharge other employees for other purposes in order to avail ourselves of the funds to hire examiners if they were available.

With respect to the availability of civilian examiners we have worked with the Civil Service Commission preparatory to establishing the position if possible. We have had the position classified for the field examiners without any supervisor, just the field examiner, and the job has been classified as P-5. To my knowledge there is no list of people who could fill the job at the present time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Your organization needs highly skilled, trained men, and no amateur can do that work?

Captain RICHMOND. That is correct. I have a copy of the civil service classification for examiner. The Civil Service does not set up a specific classification for us. The examiners are across the board as a whole, but our difficulty is we know of no individual that presently could be hired to do that job.

Mr. GRAHAM. Now bringing your testimony down to date, Captain Richmond, and having in mind the statements made before, and having in mind the objections heretofore entered, by any reasonable consideration can an interpretation be placed on your actions by carrying this on up to date that you have been doing it in defiance of Congress after the passage of the law?

Captain RICHMOND. May I ask something to get myself clear?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Captain RICHMOND. Do you mean since June 11?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Captain RICHMOND. Since June 11 we have not been taking any action which would contravene the Administrative Procedures Act. We have been, in my opinion, failing to carry out the provisions of R. S. 4450 which requires us to take disciplinary action with respect to the certificates and licenses of officers and merchant seamen.

Mr. KEATING. I never was convinced before that such star chamber proceedings were not taking place.

I haven't heard the Captain's testimony, unfortunately, and I don't know what he has said.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I suggest he sum it up?

Captain RICHMOND. Sir, as a matter of fact, I have not testified on that point. It has been our opinion there were no star chamber proceedings. In fact, I think when the system was originally revised by the Coast Guard when we took over in 1942 we leaned over backwards to go quite the other way. I think the answer to that question was probably emphasized by Mr. Latham when he pointed out that in the 30,000 cases that had been heard less than 10 percent had been appealed, and only 4 had been taken to the district courts and none of those had been reversed.

that way

Mr. KEATING. I have a very high regard and respect for Mr. Latham and his analysis of any legislation or any situation, but I would be inclined to differ with him that that was any proof whatever star chamber proceedings are not taking place.

Is it not a fact that up until the time when you ceased operating in this field the prosecutor and the judge in the case occupied the same office at any particular station?

Captain RICHMOND. Up until December 11 of 1947, in some places, yes; particularly in the foreign hearing units. That was December 11 of 1946, and not '47.

Mr. KEATING. That was true in this case, wasn't it?
Captain RICHMOND. Not entirely. It was possible. I will put it
Mr. KEATING. It happened in many instances?

Captain RICHMOND. In many instances in the small offices. In the larger offices those people who were hearing officers usually tried cases as distinguished from those officers investigating them.

Mr. KEATING. But an officer today might be investigating a case and tomorrow he might be a hearing officer, might he not?

Captain RICHMOND. In the smaller offices that is true.

Mr. KEATING. That investigator today might be a hearing officer in the other cases. In other words the roles might be just reversed. Am I not right?

Captain RICHMOND. That was true until December 11, 1946, at which time we specifically set up the hearing officers and only the hearing officers or examiners could hear the cases.

Mr. KEATING. And that continued how long? Captain RICHMOND. For six months until June 11 of last year, at which time we had no more hearing officers because of the fact the Administrative Procedures Act precluded it.

Mr. KEATING. In other words, you haven't been hearing these cases since June 11 of last year?

Captain RICHMOND. We haven't been hearing these cases since June 11 of last year.

Mr. KEATING. And at the time you ceased hearing them, certain hearing officers had the function only of hearing officers, and investigators only the function of investigators ?

Captain RICHMOND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KEATING. The hearing officer never acted as investigator in any case?

Captain RICHMOND. That is right.
Mr. KEATING. That was true in all of your stations?
Captain RICHMOND. That is correct.
Mr. KEATING. Did they continue to occupy the same offices?
Captain RICHMOND. You are speaking of space now?
Mr. GRAHAM. Physically.

Captain RICHMOND. I could not answer on every case. They were in the same buildings.

Mr. KEATING. They continued to go out to lunch together?

Captain RICHMOND. I presume they did. After all, they were all officers of the same corps. I would not make the statement they didn't know each other socially.

Mr. KEATING. As the chairman, I judge, has indicated before I came in, I was the only member of this committee who' voted un

1

favorably on this bill before us, and perhaps I may have been wrong. I have been known to be.

I would like to ask you this question. I understood you to say when you were here before that unless we acted promptly prior to June 11 last year all the officers now assigned to the duty of investigating and hearing these cases would be assigned to other duty and it would be impossible to conduct these hearings at some future time.

Is that a fair statement of your testimony?

Captain RICHMOND. As I stated this morning, sir, since June 11, we have continued to investigate cases.

We have handled those cases in this manner. Those which have been relatively minor the offender has been admonished. Those serious cases, a record has been made. There have been no hearing officers. We have a backlog of 700 cases now classed as serious on which no hearings have been held. They have been investigated.

Mr. KEATING. Investigated by you?
Captain RICHMOND. By our personnel.

Mr. KEATING. Were you still charged with investigating after
June 11?

Captain RICHMOND. We are still charged with disciplinary action under R. S. 4450. That is the reason we continue to take such action as we could and we could only go so far because we had nobody to hear the cases except the Commandant himself which would be impossible for him, as you know. .

Mr. KEATING. Under the plan arranged in 1946 how many were assigned to hearing at that time and how many to investigations?

Captain RICHMOND. About 22 as examiners. I haven't the exact number of investigating officers but it would be, I should say, 30

Mr. KEATING. Now these 22 have been assigned to other duty?

Captain RICHMOND. Regular inspection duty or duty for which they are qualified, that is correct, sir.

Mr. KEATING. But these investigating officers, none of them have been relieved of their old investigating duties?

Captain RICHMOND. I think there has been some reduction in the number.

Mr. KEATING. Reduction in the number?

Captain RICHMOND. I don't think there have been more than five or six because there have been just as many investigations.

Mr. KEATING. So if this bill were passed, which has passed the Senate, would it be your plan to recall these hearing officers from their other duties and restore them to this duty of hearing those cases ?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. That would require you to ask for additional personnel?

Captain RICIIMOND. To a certain extent. Of course with an officer corps as you know, due to attrition, it isn't quite as clear as saying we need X number of additional officers for this duty. I would say with retirements and attrition we would just take officers off of other duty and assign them to this job to carry out the work.

Mr. Keating. If they had not been doing anything would you recall them?

Captain RICHMOND. In the over-all average; yes.

or 35.

Mr. KEATING. I assume of course that you felt the action of the full committee in overruling this subcommittee and adversely reporting on the bill previously before us was wrong. I would not expect you to feel any other way, naturally.

What additional evidence have you received since the action we took before which might be considered new or additional evidence as a ground for giving favorable consideration to this bill now which did not exist before?

Captain RICHMOND. Since we have not been holding hearings there has been a decline, if you want to put it that way, of discipline on ships.

The number of cases per ship which is about the only average we can go on has been on the increase. There was a decline from 1944 up to last June and now there has been an increase in the number of serious cases.

Mr. KEATING. Increases in the number of actual cases which have arisen?

Captain RICHMOND. That is right, isn't it, Captain Jewell?

Captain JEWELL. It is hard to make that statement. All of the cases have not been handled in the same way that they would have been before. I mean by that, cases on the border-line which are not very serious have been handled with an admonition rather than charging them for a later hearing.

Mr. KEATING. In other words in the case of a seaman you would let off with an admonition now, you would really give him the works if you had the power to do it?

Captain JEWELL. I would say admonition would not be considered adequate in many cases.

Mr. KEATING. In other words you have at present rendered admonitions in many cases where you feel more severe punishment was in order if you had the power to hear the case.

Captain JEWELL. We have given him an admonition which doesn't constitute punishment.

Mr. KEATING. That goes on his record? Captain JEWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. KEATING. What kind of cases have you simply admonished where you think more severe punishment would be in order?

Captain JEWELL. Repeated cases of absence without leave and habitual drunkenness.

Mr. KEATING. In other words since you lost the power to hear cases, cases of drunkenness have only been admonished ?

Captain JEWELL. Unless they were accompanied by assault or something which would make them more severe.

Mr. KEATING. There have been no cases of drunkenness where charges were filed!

Captain JEWELL. I could not answer that. I don't think there have been, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Previous to that what was your usual penalty for drunkenness?

Captain JEWELL. It wholly depended upon the history of the case. Mere drunkenness in itself, if the man is not on watch, isn't considered to rate much disciplinary action, unless the man is habitually drunk.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »