Mr. KEATING. Have you placed that in writing to them? 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. 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. sir. 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. GRAHAM. All right then, Captain, will you step aside, please, 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. FURTHER STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY J. LATHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FORM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 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 officers 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. Mr. KEATING. And before the action of the full Committee on the Judiciary that didn't happen? Mr. LATHAM. I will say some happened since then. Mr. KEATING. That is exactly what I was trying to get from the representatives of the Coast Guard. Mr. LATHAM. They can give you 400 cases. Mr. KEATING. I will be very grateful to you. Mr. LATHAM. Let me give you a few. I won't mention names. Here are a couple I just took at random: First engineer charged with threatening the chief engineer and assaulting the chief mate and assistant mate. You can't have a situation like that going on in the engineroom of a ship. I know, because I was a skipper of a ship during the war. The man that pulls the switch in the engineroom has in his hands the fate of everybody on the ship. Mr. KEATING. Let me interrupt. Mr. LATHAM. Yes. Mr. KEATING. How is the situation different now from what it would be if civilians conducted the hearings on these cases? Of course I recognize this, that it is absolutely essential that someone hear these cases. There has been no provision made to set up a hearing board since our committec acted and as to the responsibility of that there may be some difference of opinion, but in order that my position may be clear with you, naturally there must be some hearing body. Now what I am getting at is what reason is there today for requiring that those hearings be held by officers of the Coast Guard rather than civilians which did not exist when we had this matter up in June? Mr. LATHAM. Well, that is a little different question. The question is should the Coast Guard have it or should the civilians have it? Mr. KEATING. That is right. Mr. LATHAM. I am of the very firm opinion to take it out of the Coast Guard would be a very serious mistake. In the first place the Coast Guard know ships and the sea. If you let civilians do it you would get a bunch of bright young lawyers fresh out of Harvard law school who would hold hearings. You have an incident in Tokyo. You probably have Coast Guard officers there. They move in quickly and get the facts and dispose of the case. If you do it with civilians it is a case of spending $200,000 to $300,000 more than with the Coast Guard. Mr. KEATING. Did you hear the testimony regarding the job they had done? Mr. LATHAM. No; I didn't. Mr. GRAHAM. When testimony was heard on the other bill one of the things that ran through my mind was the dispersal of witnesses. Would you address yourself to that? Mr. LATHAM. Yes, suppose something happens in a little seaport in South America, some incident involving seamen on several ships. The ships depart for various destinations. How are you going to get the witnesses unless you do it on the spot? The Coast Guard moves in, the Coast Guard man is there, gets all the facts and decides it and it is done. Mr. KEATING. As I understand from the gentleman who testified for the Coast Guard, that the Coast Guard is still charged with the investigative duties even now. Would it not be sufficient to have them collect the facts in that capacity without going ahead and conducting a hearing? Mr. LATHAM. No; I think it is essential to dispose of it there. I don't see how you are going to collect the evidence. Mr. KEATING. I presume they would reduce the evidence to writing. Mr. LATHAM. You would have no opportunity for cross examination or calling additional witnesses. It is one of those things of a very special nature. It is not like a regular lawsuit. It is a special case and has to do with ships and discipline. You don't have the same discipline in an office building as you do on ships. It is a special case. think the Coast Guard has done a fair job and an efficient job and should be given the authority to continue. I Mr. HOBBS. Isn't it the same difference exactly between a law court and a court of admiralty? Mr. LATHAM. Exactly. Mr. HOBBS. It is the reason why we have admiralty procedure. Mr. GRAHAM. And this is a fact, admiralty law is different from any other law? Mr. LATHAM. I recall that it is. I don't remember much of it. Mr. GRAHAM. At Pittsburgh we have to try a good many cases involving boats under the admiralty law, and I found to my amazement and sorrow I knew next to nothing about it. I made a thorough study and found out how little I knew. I think that is the average lawyer's experience. Mr. LATHAM. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a very apt illustration of the difference. I think Judge Hobbs made a fine point. Mr. HOBBS. Wasn't the gentleman in the Coast Guard? Mr. LATHAM. No; I was in the Navy. Mr. GRAHAM. How long? Mr. LATHAM. 3 years. Mr. GRAHAM. What was your rank? Mr. LATHAM. Lieutenant. Mr. GRAHAM. Do any other members wish to question Mr. Latham? Mr. KEATING. No. I would like to compliment him. Mr. GRAHAM. Does this conclude your testimony? Mr. LATHAM. Yes; but I will come back on next Wednesday. Mr. GRAHAM. Then, we will just adjourn over until 10:30 next Wednesday morning. (Whereupon, at 11: 10 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10:30 a. m., Wednesday, March 10, 1948.) CONDUCT OF DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS BY COAST GUARD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1948 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Th esubcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a. m., in room 327, Old House Office Building, Hon. Louis E. Graham (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. GRAHAM. The committee will come to order. Mr. GRAHAM. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Buck, Congressman from New York. STATEMENT OF HON. ELLSWORTH B. BUCK, A CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ellsworth B. Buck. I represent the Sixteenth District of New York. I wish to thank you and the committee for this opportunity to offer my testimony here this morning. Three circumstances motivate my appearance in connection with the dangerous situation currently existing as to merchant marine personnel. First, last summer and fall, I traveled to and from Europe on American liner and spent hours discussing with the masters the break-down and discipline on American merchant ships. Second, I am a former member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and thus, have an abiding interest in the welfare of the American merchant marine. Third, the district I represent probably embraces a greater concentration of ocean shipping than any district in the Nation. What injures the American merchant marine injures the life blood of my district. I understand that my able colleague, Mr. Latham has outlined to your committee the legal tangle which has brought about the accumulation of 534 serious cases awaiting action. With your permission, I wish to cite a few of the more flagrant cases for the record. Case Z-324158: Apprehended by the Customs while in possession of narcotics, tried in Federal court, sentence suspended and placed on 1 year's probation with recommendation that he not be deported. Case Z-270895: Charged with physical incompetence resulting from narcotics addiction while serving as beliboy aboard the Steamship Marine Perch, a pas |