STEAMSHIP SEATRAIN "HAVANA"

Owner: Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Place of occurrence: New Orleans, La.

On July 14, 1937, the vessel was ready to proceed on her voyage. The unlicensed personnel refused to take the vessel to sea. The unlicensed personnel was replaced with a new unlicensed crew, whereupon the licensed assistant engineer refused to take the vessel to sea, although at the time she was anchored in the stream. The old licensed personnel were then taken back on the vessel and the vessel sailed on July 23, 1937, having been delayed nine days.

This matter was not reported to the Department of Commerce, as it was believed at the time that the action was not that of the crew acting on its own responsibility.

STEAMSHIP "CALIFORNIA"

Owner: Panama Pacific Line.

Place of occurrence: Balboa, C. Z. On August 27, 1937, orders were given to cast off the lines. Nine men in the deck department refused. After a delay of approximately twenty minutes the lines were cast off and the vessel continued on her voyage.

Place of occurrence: At sea. On September 19th and 20th, William Burke, electrician, failed to stand his watches.

Place of occurrence: Colon, C. Z. On September 21st, when the vessel was due to cast off from her dock, signals were given to the engine room to get under way. The engineer on duty ordered the fires lit. Four firemen on watch refused. It. became necessary for the engineer officer on watch to light off the fires himself. After the vessel got under way the firemen who had refused to obey the orders turned to.

These three cases were reported to the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. An investigation was ordered. All of the men, over whom the Department of Commerce could get jurisdiction, were tried. The matter is now in the hands of the Department of Commerce. No decision has been rendered.

STEAMSHIP "AMERICAN SHIPPER"

Owner: United States Lines Company.

Place of Occurrence: New York, N. Y.

12:50 p. m. September 11, 1937. The crew under articles and vessel ready to sail, with gangway landed, when orders were given to let go the moorings. Four seamen refused to obey the chief officer's orders to cast off. The vessel was delayed until 1:13 p. m.

This matter was not reported to the Department of Commerce.

Owner: C. D. Mallory.

STEAMSHIP "HOXBAR"

Place of occurrence: Marcus Hook, Pa.

On August 22, 1937, the unlicensed personnel demanded so-called "overtime pay" for the performance of certain of their duties, and when the demand was refused the crew refused to obey orders and went on a so-called sitdown strike.

STEAMSHIP "SWIFTSCOUT"

Owner: C. D. Mallory.

Place of occurrence: Providence, R. I.

On August 26, 1937, the unlicensed personnel refused to handle lines of tugs whose crews were not members of their union (National Maritime Union). Orders were given to handle the lines, but the crew refused.

On September 7, 1937, five members of the crew refused duty because their officers were not members of a union affiliated with the National Maritime Union. The action of five members of the crew caused the vessel to be tied up.

Owner: C. D. Mallory.

S. S. "HALSEY"

Place of occurrence: Baltimore, Md.

On September 7, 1937, the engine room crew refused to furnish steam to discharge cargo or move the ship. Orders were given but refusal continued in sympathy with the situation on the S. S. Malacca referred to above.

Owner: C. D. Mallory.

S. S. "DURANGO"

Place of occurrence: Houston, Tex.

The crew refused to obey the orders of the master when orders were given to cast off the lines and sail the vessel. The unlicensed personnel and certain of the officers were making demands for so-called "overtime pay" and further demanding that the shipping articles signed before a shipping commissioner be re-written.

September 30th the crew refused to perform their official duties, although they had no complaint. Their refusal was based on their sympathy for the crew of the S. S. Durango referred to above.

S. S. "F. W. ABRAMS"

Owner: Standard Oil of New Jersey
Place of occurrence: Providence R. I.

Crew refused to perform its official duties because of their sympathy with the demands of the S. S. Sylvan Arrow.

This matter was reported to the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. Proper hearings were ordered and had and the men were tried. The matter is now in the hands of the Department of Commerce and no decision has been rendered.

S. S. "T. C. M'COBB"

Owner: Standard Oil of New Jersey.

Place of occurrence: Wilmington Ñ. C.

Crew refused to take the ship to sea when ordered to do so by master. Ship delayed approximately twenty-four hours.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

AMENDING THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936

TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1938

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, AND

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The committees met in executive session at 10 a. m. in the com mittee room of the Senate Committee on Commerce in the Capitol, Senator Royal S. Copeland (chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce) presiding.

Present: Senators Copeland, Thomas of Utah, Donahey, Maloney, Nye, Vandenberg, and Gibson.

Present also: Rear Admiral H. G. Hamlet, United States Coast Guard; Capt. C. S. Joyce, United States Navy; Commander E. G. Small, United States Navy; Commander R. S. Field, United States Navy, Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, Department of Commerce; John J. Daly, United States Shipping Commissioner, New York, N. Y.; John W. Mann.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a joint hearing of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Education and Labor, in executive session. Its purpose is to continue the hearing of witnesses from the Government with respect to the conduct of seamen.

Commander Field, may we begin with you?

Commander FIELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you arranged your material so that you can present it concisely?

Commander FIELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Commander.

STATEMENT OF COMMANDER R. S. FIELD, BUREAU OF MARINE INSPECTION AND NAVIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Commander FIELD. I have prepared here a summary of the cases. which the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation has investigated, and it is in pamphlet form. Of course, all of these cases that I have here are not necessarily cases of alleged misconduct; some of them go into collisions and some into mishaps which had to be investigated.

We have, as you know, the A marine investigation board, which investigates casualties which result in loss of life; we have the B marine investigation board, which investigates serious casualties which do not involve loss of life; and then we have the C board,

which investigates casualties of less importance. Generally speaking, where an investigation of conduct is concerned, where there has been no loss of life or no major casualty involved, it is handled by a C board.

These boards conduct investigations, and if an apparent cause is found for bringing any officers or any of the unlicensed personnel to trial, those boards conduct the trials. If, as the result of such a trial, the Director of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation finds that there has been any misconduct, any unskillfulness, or any of the various other terms mentioned in the law, he is required to suspend or revoke the licenses or certificates of the people found guilty.

A summary indicates that since this amendment to section 4450 went into effect on August 27, 1936, we have had 167 complaints, 83 of which have been closed, 24 of which are in the Bureau, ready for review, and 60 of which are still under investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. Complaints relating to conduct?
Commander FIELD. Generally speaking, yes, sir.

There have been 63 major "A" cases, of which 39 are closed and 24 are under investigation.

There have been 89 major marine casualties, which we call "B” cases, of which 70 are closed and 19 are under investigation.

We have found 634 minor "A" cases. A minor "A" case is a case in which a life has been lost but no particular collision or casualty or fire has occurred. It is just where life has been lost aboard ship. There have been 634 of those minor "A" cases, of which 324 have been closed and 310 are still under investigation.

There have been 2,447 of the "C" cases, of which 2,150 have been closed and 297 are under investigation.

I can submit this whole pamphlet for the record, unless you would like me to read it.

The CHAIRMAN. You might do that. Are you, in addition to that, going to sift out and present a few specific cases relating to conduct or misconduct?

Commander FIELD. I could do that.

The CHAIRMAN. I have before me a short list of such incidents which I should like to take up individually for discussion.

The first one I have here occurred under date of September 3, 1937. It reads:

On September 3, 1937, seamen of the S. S. President Grant brutally assaulted Chinese at Hongkong, receiving severe fines. The consul was of the opinion that so many incidents of the kind had happened that jail sentences would be handed out in the future and reported that such incidents had created in Hongkong a very bad impression of American merchant seamen in general.

Have you any record of that particular incident?

Commander FIELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What did your people say about it?

Commander FIELD. The consul at Hongkong, under date of September 21, 1937, reported that two seamen of the S. S. President Grant assaulted Chinese. One paid his fine; the other was serving 91 days in jail.

That is an element of misconduct which reflects on the American merchant marine as a who e and embarrasses our consuls in foreign ports; but as far as my action in a case like that is concerned, I have none. A man who gets into trouble on shore is not subject to my jurisdiction.

Senator VANDENBERG. That is purely a matter of personal misconduct and does not involve any conspiracy to produce misconduct. The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you have to say about that? Commander FIELD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I shall call that one No. 1, for the purpose of the record.

The second one occurred on June 28, 1935, and reads:

On June 28, 1935, the consul at Vancouver, British Columbia, reported that the crew of the S. S. Texada had been guilty of mutinous conduct in sympathy with striking longshoremen in that port. They were discharged and boasted that upon their return to San Francisco they would effect the ruin of the Kingsley Navigation Co. (the owners of the vessel) and the separation from the foreign service of the consul.

Have you any record of that case?

Commander FIELD. There is no record of that case at all, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The third one was on May 9, 1936. It reads:

On May 9, 1936, the consul at Wellington, New Zealand, reported that a seaman of the S. S. Golden Bear was discharged by reason of imprisonment by New Zealand authorities on a charge of assaulting the second officer, and drunkenness. It appeared that he had threatened violence to other officers and had been inciting others of the crew to insubordination. The consul reported that ships were having increasing difficulties in maintaining American shipping service.

Have you anything on that case?
Commander FIELD. May 9, 1936?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Commander FIELD. No, sir; I do not attempt to go back that far. The CHAIRMAN. The fourth one was on September 10, 1936. I read: On September 10, 1936, the consul at Bombay, India, reported that the entire American crew of the S. S. President Wilson had committed a number of acts which he interpreted as mutiny and that it was one of a series of similar events that had been taking place on the vessels of the Dollar Line.

Is that too far back for your record?

Mr. MERRILL. That does not come under an investigation of this sort. September 1936 was before the State Department was referring those to the Bureau for board investigations.

The CHAIRMAN. The fifth one reads:

On February 2, 1935, at Hong Kong, one member of the crew of the S. S. President Grant stabbed and killed another member of the crew, apparently as a result of labor disputes. The magistrate commented upon the disgraceful conduct of American seamen, The consul reported a number of similar assaults which had taken place there and said American vessels were coming into disrepute.

That, I take it, is also too far. back?
Commander FIELD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The sixth one reads:

On October 27, 1936, while the S. S. West Mahwah was at the dock in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the crew struck, complaining of poor food and demanding the discharge of the steward.

Have you a record of that?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What have you to say about that one?

Mr. MERRILL. We have the West Mahwah, sir, with reference to the abandonment of four men by the master. It was a complaint against A. C. Yetkin, second mate, for negligence and inattention to duty. That was on the West Mahwah, but that was not the incident. you refer to. We do not have that case, sir.