The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that it is important that there should be some system worked out by which there may be stability of employment and encouragement to operators to operate their ships? Is that important?

Mr. BOROW. Would you repeat that question, please?

The CHAIRMAN. I say, is it important that there should be an understanding between labor and the operators of the ships, in order that there may be a building up of the American merchant marine? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir. And I think that we are making very good progress in that respect through the mediation sections in the agreements now being signed between the unions and the employers. The CHAIRMAN. And yet we are not building ships.

Mr. BOROW. Well, is that the fault of the shipowners?

The CHAIRMAN. No; I would not say it was the fault of the shipowners. It is contended that it is the fault of capital, that it will not go into shipbuilding so long as conditions are so disturbed.

Mr. BOROW. In looking over the past history, generally, we have seen that the American Government has put a great deal of money into American ships, previously, through the mail contracts.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that system should have been continued?

Mr. BOROW. No, sir; I do not. But even when the shipowners were getting all this money in the form of these mail contracts, they did not build any ships at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. And they are not building any now?

Mr. BOROW. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And the reason why this bill was presented, according to the testimony of Mr. Kennedy, was because they could not build ships under the law. It is necessary to have changes in the law in order that there might be construction. And certainly if there is one group in the world interested in the matter of construction, it ought to be maritime labor; isn't that so?

Mr. BOROW. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am anxious to know this: Do you think that progress is being made as rapidly as possible in reaching an understanding between ship operators and labor, in order that there may be an advance in shipbuilding?

Mr. BOROW. In order that there may be an advance in what?
The CHAIRMAN. In shipbuilding.

Mr. BOROW. Well, in shipbuilding: With particular respect to shipbuilding, I am not fully qualified to speak on that matter. is in Mr. Van Gelder's line."

That

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about conditions in the shipyards. I mean the general proposal to build up the American merchant marine. It is not being built up, is it?

Mr. BOROW. That is quite true.

The CHAIRMAN. And when you consider the number of ships that are acceptable according to the standard of 20 years of age, the number we have is pitifully low, is it not--and nothing in sight for the moment, for the construction of ships to replace these ancient types?

Now, certainly labor must have a great interest in the upbuilding of the merchant marine, in order that there may be employment. Mr. BOROW. That is true. But we certainly will not get it by building ships in foreign shipyards, as has been proposed here.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us leave that; that has no particular bearing on this matter.

If you had $100,000,000, would you spend it in American shipyards, in building ships here and putting them under the American flag, as conditions exist today?

Mr. BOROW. If I had $100,000,000?

The CHAIRMAN. Of course that is just as impossible to me as it is to you. But if you had $100,000,000 would you build ships and operate them under the American flag, under present conditions? Mr. BOROW. Well, I am not qualified on that.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; go ahead.

Senator GIBSON. Have you been at sea fairly regularly during the last year or two?

Mr. BOROW. Not the last year or two, sir. Senator, if you will just pardon me a moment, I want to say with respect to the question of Senator Copeland, that judging from past experience it seems that those in control of the shipping industry are not really interested in building new ships; they are interested in turning over a lot of money for themselves. That is the way it appears to us.

The CHAIRMAN. They have not done that for quite a number of years, have they?

Mr. BOROW. Well, take the

The CHAIRMAN. The United Fruit Line?

Mr. BOROW. I could scarcely call the United Fruit Line an American company; 50 percent of their ships, or approximately, are under a foreign flag.

The CHAIRMAN. Why?

Mr. BOROW. I believe they are best qualified to answer that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not because they want to make some money? Mr. BOROW. Naturally all business wants to make money.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us not spar about it; let us be frank about it. You, representing labor, have a definite objective, not alone to improve working conditions but to increase employment; is not that true?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you expect to achieve your objectives unless you have peace with those who operate the ships? Remember, I am not saying that they are not to blame. Do not misunderstand me. I have said more mean things about American ship operators than any other man in this room; I am not defending them. That is not the question.

But what I want to know from you is this: Is it not of vital importance to maritime labor, that there should be an upbuilding of the American merchant marine?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir; there is no question about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, considering the fact that there are so many labor disputes and labor troubles and atrocities, I may say, do not those things have a lot to do with the interference with the flow of capital into the building of ships?

Mr. BOROW. I would say that they perhaps did. But we want to speak in the present and in the future, Senator. We have been going through a period of transition, here, as has been brought up here before, I am quite sure. And we have been moving through the time when the shipowners have been taking a positively dogmatic

stand with respect to labor; they just would not deal with us under any conditions, regardless of the Wagner Labor Relations Act. We have many things to prove that, and I am sure the Senators themselves realize that.

But now with this new day that is coming on for all of us, the shipowners and the maritime unions are getting together. Because of the recalcitrant attitude on the part of shipowners dealing with labor, we have had a great many disputes. But in the past month there have been hardly any disputes.

The CHAIRMAN. You read in the morning paper some terrible stories about a ship called the Algue?

Mr. BOROW. That situation I understand happened prior to a month ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, the events happened 3 or 4 months ago, but the trial is on now.

Mr. BOROW. Do you feel that the shipowners have no responsibility whatsoever in any of these things, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you question that I believe that they have? Mr. BOROW. Well, from the line of your questioning.

The CHAIRMAN. Not at all. The ship operators are merely employees, like you. They are employees. The success of the building up of the American merchant marine depends upon capital-upon getting money either from the Government or from private sources.

Now, you, as maritime labor, are dealing with maritime executives who are employees. The money in shipping is not from the pockets of the men who operate the ships. The money in shipping comes from the bankers and, through the bankers, from the American people. If you follow back to the last man involved, you will find that small investors are the ones who have the money.

Now, if you get in your mind that you are dealing with employees like yourselves, then you might come to some happy solution. And I think that is very important.

So far as this committee is concerned, there are no ship operators here or shipowners or ship investors. We are here trying merely the best we can to find a way to build up an American merchant marine. And it is merely a waste of time for us to talk about your grievances with the operators.

How can we stop it? How can we get together? Are you doing your part; are you going as far as you ought?

Now, I assume you will say "Yes". But yet you go over in the Commerce Committee room and see a picture there, showing our merchant marine as compared with the merchant marine of Great Britain and of other nations: It is pathetic; it is heartbreaking. Now, what are you going to do to help it?

Mr. BOROW. Well, Senator, I do not think that we could say that the shipping industry has been in a state of depression ever since the World War that the shipowners must have made, and those investing money that is, from private capital, in shipping-must have received some returns in the last 15 or 20 years, let us say.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you taken pains to see whether they did or not?

Mr. BOROW. Well, I have consulted various statistical records and so forth. But the fact remains that they have not built any ships in the past 20 years that is, not to amount to anything. And certainly they were not losing money in all these years.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, go ahead. Have you anything else to say? Mr. BOROW. Yes; I should like to discuss one or two further points. Senator VANDENBERG. In line with the questions Senator Copeland has been asking you: Let me concede that the attitude of the maritime employer has been wrong; let us start with that concession. Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. Still we confront a condition and not a theory, today. And part of that condition is a growing feeling in the minds of the American public that it is not even safe to ride on an American ship because of the disintegration on that point. Do you share that feeling?

Mr. BOROW. No, sir; I do not.

Senator VANDENBERG. Do you think discipline aboard a ship today is as good as it was 5 years ago-just discipline on the ship, at sea?

Mr. BOROW. Well, it seems there are two different kinds of discipline.

Senator WHITE. The trouble has been that you have not been willing to carry on your contests on land.

Mr. BOROW. Pardon me, sir?

Senator WHITE. The trouble is that the contests between labor and the ship operators have not been confined to land, but they project right out on to the ship while it is at sea. And I agree with Senator Vandenberg that there is a feeling all through this country today—a feeling that it is not safe to travel on an American ship because of an utter definance of discipline. And that has to be cured.

Senator VANDENBERG. That has to be cured, from your point of view; because it does not do you any good to achieve all the benefits you seek, if you destroy the American trade in American ships through a loss of confidence because of these incidents I am talking about. Have you never heard of these incidents at sea?

Mr. BOROW. I have heard of these incidents, and been very suspicious as to what is the responsibility for them.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean they might have been facilitated?
Mr. BOROW. Yes; or used for a particular purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this: Have you made a contract with the Black Diamond Line?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it a satisfactory contract?

Mr. BOROW. It is a very good contract.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember the date of that contract?

Mr. BOROW. The original contract was signed some time ago; I do not remember the original date. But I signed a contract, myself, on September 30 of this year, with the Black Diamond Line.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have what you consider a very satisfactory agreement with the Black Diamond Line?

Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Then I want to read a letter for the record, from a man who has absolutely nothing to do with the American shipping, and who states that he was a passenger on the Black Falcon, which I understand is one of the Black Diamond Line, which sailed on October 30, 1937, from New York to Rotterdam:

DECEMBER 3, 1937.

Subject: Disorder and lawlessness on Steamship Black Falcon, sailing October 30, 1937, from New York to Rotterdam.

Hon. ROYAL S. COPELAND,

The Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: I was a passenger on the above steamer operated by the Black Diamond Line, and spent 13 days of about the worst treatment, in common with several other passengers, that could be faced. This abuse, intimidation, and disorder were due totally to the crew, including the master and mates. The master was cowed and powerless; the first mate expressed the admission that he was "red"; the second mate was a surly disagreeable character; and the third mate was continually ordering passengers from any place that he wished, though in one case countermanded by the master.

The first 2 days the cook dealt out liquor to make many of the crew drunk, and this cook was apparently the leading agitator and leader of the mutinous crew. The same cook repeatedly refused to do his obvious duties; on one occasion he engaged in cursing and abuse of the master, with an intimidating committee of the crew, over his refusal to cook dinner. On one occasion the same cook refused to fry two eggs for breakfast, on request of the writer. Most of the crew were snarling and showing threatening manners to the passengers on every occasion where it was necessary to come in contact with them.

The crew did little work on deck, tossed into the sea all the forward deck cargo— each drunken sailor tossing some overboard as he passed on the deck. The aft deck cargo was hardly lashed, and a great part of it was lost, due to this wild conduct and failure to properly stow it. There was quite a lot of water taken on deck; but to me this was due to the fact that the sailors acting as quartermasters did not care how then steered. On one occasion we noticed a variation of 120° in the course; and on another occasion the first mate rushed to the wheel house as the ship veered about 45° or more from its course, to find what was going on. Few of the crew could speak English properly, and were obviously qualified as Americans only by law, not by birth or characteristics; the third mate was Lithuanian, and spoke English in a broken manner. The Americanborn members of the crew were not in agreement with, and were anxious to get away from the communistic and alien group of mutinous hoodlums led by the cook.

To find the motives for abuse of the passengers, it seems that the crew claimed that the passengers occupied cabins that should be given to the crew, and possibly had taken these methods to drive the passengers off the line. I was told that the crew "struck" to have their favored first mate engaged for the voyage; they or their fellow strikers some weeks before had beaten the ship's steward, so he was cowed. The cook's refusal to cook fried eggs, when he had boiled eggs on the menu, the refusal several times to serve food to the passengers within the published hours (served only promptly at the first few minutes of the appointed time, and not later) was only the most effective means that the crew could use against the passengers. The fierce and menacing and surly actions when a passenger came in contact with members of the crew cannot be adequately stated in words.

The darkening of any available lounging space at night, avoidance of passengers by master and mates, even when addressed by the passengers, was the rule.

The driving of passengers off the ship and the destruction of cargo by such sabotage as we witnessed, can lead to only one end: The destruction of American shipping. It will be useless to try to maintain a merchant marine under such lawless and mutinous conditions.

I personally have no stake in the matter, except as an American. I actually enjoyed the experience on the crazy-steered course, by the hooligan crew, including the mates, and the cowed and intimidated master. However, it was deemed best to make my return by another line, the Compagnie Maritime Belge, where an American was safe and well treated in every imaginable way.

Very truly yours,

Mr. BOROW. Whom is that signed by?

The CHAIRMAN. I shall consult with the committee about putting it in the record.

But listen: This is not the only letter; this is characteristic of the complaints that have come, about American crews.