Lapas attēli

Mr. KEATING. If he is habitually drunk you can file a request with the union to let him go and they will let him go, won't they?

Captain JEWELL. We have nothing to do with filing any requests with the union, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Well, I suppose that is true. You don't have to put up with continued drunkenness, do you?

Captain JEWELL. Well, there isn't much of any recourse. If a man is habitually drunk on ship he may be logged for the watches he doesn't stand. There is nothing to prevent him from going to another ship.

Mr. KEATING. In these cases of habitual drunkenness which you have admonished, have you filed charges with those who are now authorized to conduct hearings in these cases?

Captain JEWELL. I could not answer that question without seeing our records.

Mr. KEATING. Have you refused to grant immediate hearings in cases where you have filed charges with them under the Administrative Procedures Act?

Captain JEWELL. I don't understand who “them” are.

Mr. KEATING. Those charged with conducting the hearings under the new administrative procedures act.

Captain RICHMOND. If I may interrupt, sir, I think the point is we have nobody charged at the present time with the conduct of the hearings. We have no civil examiners.

Mr. KEATING. Why don't you have civilian examiners?

Captain RICHMOND. Because we have not the funds to employ them, and as I mentioned before you came in, sir—

Mr. Keating (interposing). Did you ask for the funds?

Captain RICHMOND. We have asked for the funds on two occasions and we have them in our current appropriation, sir.

In respect to the last request that was acted on, if I may read this portion of the committee report of July 24, 1947: The committee having ascertained that the proper legislative committees are working on legislation which would make unnecessary the appointment of civilian examiners in connection with merchant marine hearings, the request of the Coast Guard for $120,000 for such appointments has not been included. This will not prejudice the Coast Guard from resubmitting such estimates if necessary legislation on the subject is enacted. Meanwhile, the Coast Guard should utilize for necessary hearings, the funds appropriated in the regular 1948 appropriation bill for civilian personnel.

As I said to Judge Graham, before you came in we do not have a lump appropriation that covers all our expenses. For 1948 we do, but we have a limitation on personnel provided, namely, civilian employees. The very wording of this report indicates a temporary set-up. Our limitation was insufficient to employ the people necessary to do our normal work. Therefore, it would have meant if the people had been available to hire examiners, we would have had to fire, you might say, regular employees engaged on other work in order to get this type of employee.

We have worked with the Civil Service Commission and had the positions set up and classified as a P-5 job for the examiner as such. So far the Civil Service has not established a list of people eligible and we ourselves have not found anybody whom we considered qualified to hold the job that we could recommend to the civil service.

Mr. KEATING. As I remember our full committee acted unfavorably on the previous bill before us some time in May last year.

Captain RICHMOND. That is right.

Mr. KEATING. At that time did you immediately go to the Appropriations Committee and renew your request for funds to set up the civilian body ?

Captain RICHMOND. Sir, before you acted unfavorably, anticipating it, we had submitted a supplemental request. The date of that report I read is July 24, 1947, which was a month after the action.

As you understand, when you go to the Appropriations Committee, it is only natural we have to go through the Treasury and the Bureau of the Budget. It isn't simply a question of walking into the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. KEATING. You have no funds now set up to conduct these hearings at all?

Captain RICHMOND. That is correct
Mr. KEATING. These cases are just piling up?
Captain RICHMOND. Yes.

Mr. KEATING. Suppose we pass this today, how would you handle it?

Captain RICHMOND. Even though it were passed today, we would assign officers who were working in other fields to take this job on, even if it meant cutting into other work. That is a personnel problem.

Mr. KEATING. In other words, you could use funds to pay officers of the Coast Guard to do this work but you could not use any funds to pay civilians ?

Captain RICHMOND. That is right, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Do you mean to tell me the United States Coast Guard has no way of arranging their funds so that they can use them for that purpose ?

Captain RICHMOND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KEATING. But they can use them to pay officers of the Coast Guard ?

Captain RICHMOND. We have the qualified officers that can do the job. They have done it in the past, but in getting qualified civilians it means employing some civilians who must be brought in.

Mr. KEATING. You could use an officer instead of a civilian?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir. Our appropriation is set up in this fashion. Take “Salaries, Office of the Commandant," at Washington. We have a limitation of $2,000,000 for civilian employees. Now irrespective of the funds we might have available in the over-all appropriaton we cannot exceed that limitation and we have run extensive reductions in force already this year to come in that limitation, and the same thing applies to the field. We would have to discharge the civilian employees regardless of what type of work it is he does, no matter whether an engineer or what, in order to get necessary funds to hire somebody to do this job.

Mr. KEATING. Don't you think if the tables had been reversed you would have figured out some way in the meantime to conduct these hearings by officers and to relieve civilians of their duties in order to make room for Coast Guard officers to handle the hearings?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir; I don't think so, if I understand your question.

Mr. KEATING. Well, now come back to my other question. Your associates have said it is not a fact that there have been additionaltliat it is impossible to say that there have been additional infractions of regulations since the change last June. What other reasons are there why we should feel differently now from what we did last June?

Captain RICHMOND. Well, I think the present situation with respect to the Coast Guard is that we are in sort of an impossible situation. I don't think the situation is any different than it was last June. We are faced with a mandate from Congress under R. S. 1450 to take disciplinary action with respect to licenses and certificates of merchant officers and seamen, and because of this situation we are unable to do that.

Mr. KEATING. Your remedy is with the Appropriations Committee?

Captain RICHMOND. Not entirely, sir. There is the question of getting the people. The Civil Service Commission has not established a list.

Mr. KEATING. That is the fault of the Civil Service Commission? Captain RICHMOND. No, sir; you can't necessarily create the men to fill those jobs.

Mr. KEATING. Since last May you knew the attitude of the Congress of the United States as exemplified by the action of the Judiciary Committee in disapproving this legislation. It certainly isn't the fault of this committee that the funds haven't been provided and a civilian body set up to do the job.

Mr. GRAHAM. In justice to you people, you did have a companion bill in the Senate and you were looking with hope over there!

Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAHAM. And that was passed. Mr. KEATING. That is exactly what I have been trying to get at. They haven't lifted a finger to put into effect what they should and they were hoping we would act favorably upon the bill upon which the Senate acted favorably.

Captin RICHMOND. Sir, if I may be permitted to disagree with you. As I say, we have gone as far as we possibly can.

Mr. KEATING. I understand Civil Service

Captain RICHMOND (interposing). They have not established a list.

Mr. KEATING. Have they held examinations?

Captain Richmond. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. We have the position classified.

Mr. KEATING. Have you requested them to do so?
Captain RICHMOND. For these positions?

Captain RICHMOND. No, sir; because their examinations for examiners are not for the Coast Guard.

Mr. KEATING. They have examiners in every other field of activity. Have you requested them to assign examiners and pointed out to them the emergency of this situation?

Captain RICHMOND. Sir, we have had numerous long conferences with the Civil Service.

Mr. KEATING. Have you pointed out the serious situation with which you are faced ?

Captain RICHMOND. Yes,

Mr. KEATING. Have you placed that in writing to them!
Captain RICHMOND. Not recently.

Mr. KEATING. How recently did you point out to them the emergency?

Captain RICHMOND. June is my guess. I don't have the letter.
Mr. KEATING. Will you produce the letter at the next hearing ?
Captain RICHMOND. I will.
Mr. KEATING. That is all.
Mr. GRAHAM. Are there any other questions?

Mr. KEATING. Were public hearings held before the Senate Judiciary on S. 1077 ?

Captain RICHMOND. To my knowledge; no, sir. Mr. KEATING. The opponents of the measure were not given any chance to be heard so far as you know?

Captain RICHMOND. So far as I know, neither the opponents nor the proponents of the subject.

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you any questions you wish to ask, Mr. Lewis?
Mr. LEWIS. No: I don't believe I have.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Reeves !
Mr. REEVES. No, sir.
Mr. LEWIS. I was pretty critical of this bill last year as I recall.
Mr. GRAHAM. Judge Hobbs, any questions?
Mr. HOBBS. No.
Mr. GRAHAM. Any questions, Mr. Gorski!
Mr. GORSKI. No questions,

Mr. GRAIIAM. All right then, Captain, will you step aside, please, sir.

Captain RICHMOND. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Latham, would you care to come back to the stand now?

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I am ready.



Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead, Mr. Latham.

Mr. LATHAM. I have read this memorandum which sets forth the objection of Mr. Walter to the passage of this bill, which is very general in nature.

My suggestion is that the passage of this bill would not only not break down the Administrative Procedures Act, but would put the law back where it was when that law was passed. It wasn't that act that did the damage here. It was the passage of the law a month later of the President's Reorgnization Plan No. 3 of 1946, which abolished the statutory offices of the employees of the Coast Guard. So, the passage of this act would restore the law where it was when you gentlemen passed the Administrative Procedures Act.

Mr. GRAHAM. In other words, there is no conflict between the Administrative Procedures Act, and no whittling away of the powers of that Act?

Mr. LATHAM. Exactly, because of the specific exemption in section

7 (a).

74403-48-ser, 17—_-7

Mr. GRAHAM. Now on that point does anybody wish to question Mr. Latham.

Mr. KEATING. You understand, Mr. Latham, the reason for that exception in the act at that time was because we were then in the war and during wartime it felt that the Coast Guard should conduct these hearings because of the quasi-military character and status of the personnel involved.

Mr. LATHAM. I don't know that that was the reason, Mr. Keating, but certainly this bill would put the law back where it was when you gentlemen passed the Administrative Procedures Act. If you leave it the way it is you have changed the Administrative Procedures Act.

Mr. KEATING. It was never contemplated there would be a long-term exemption. The Coast Guard temporarily conducted these hearings during the war. When they were first assigned the duty there was never any intention it would be permanent.

Mr. LATHAM. It is my opinion it would be a very very serious mistake to take them out.

Mr. GRAHAM. Does anybody else wish to question Mr. Latham on that particular point?

In view of Judge Hobbs' observation off the record, will you proceed?

Mr. HOBBS. I would suggest Mr. Latham be allowed to revise his testimony.

Mr. GRAHAM. And may I further suggest to you after the testimony is written up and typed, you may have access to it and if you wish to clarify it you may do so.

Mr. LATHAM. My contention is that the Coast Guard did continue to hold these investigations and disciplinary proceedings up until the time that the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 became law, and then the Attorney General, looking at that Administrative Procedures Act handed down a decision to the effect that because the reorganization plan wiped out the statutory offices of supervisors and inspectors and others, that the Coast Guard could no longer perform those functions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Now, Mr. Latham, do you wish to say something further?

You have heard the statement of Mr. Keating in his questions of Captain Richmond. Do you wish to address yourself to any phase of that?

Mr. LATHAM. Just one brief point. Mr. Keating has asked what has happened since failure to pass the original bill. My answer is more people are being killed at sea, more American lives are being jeopardized on the high seas, because you are permitting incompetent oflicers and men to sail the ships.

Mr. KEATING. That is exactly, Mr. Latham, the type of thing I wanted to find out about. I would not knowingly be a party to anything of that kind. Now that is intensely interesting. Is incompetency one of the charges which can be brought against a seaman?

Mr. LATHAM. I am certain that it is. Mr. KEATING. I judge that you must have specific cases of that kind. Mr. LATHAM. I can give you 700 of them on which no action has been taken involving death and collisions at sea, incompetent skippers, and many other cases. I will give them to you right now.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »