EXECUTIVE SESSION AMENDING THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1938 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, AND COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D. C. The committee met in executive session at 11 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the committee 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, Ellender, and Gibson. Present also: Rear Admiral H. G. Hamlet, United States Coast. Guard; Capt. C. S. Joyce, United States Navy; and John Mann, adviser to the Committee on Commerce; also, A. V. Caffee, in charge of the Shipping Section in the Division of Foreign Service Administration, Department of State. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear from Mr. Saugstad this morning. STATEMENT OF JESSE E. SAUGSTAD, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, TRADE AGREEMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and your position, Mr. Saugstad, for the record. Mr. SAUGSTAD. J. E. Saugstad, of the Trade Agreement Division. of the Department of State. The CHAIRMAN. We are trying to find out the truth about the frequent charges made that there is disorder on the American ships and lack of discipline. It is the duty of the Commerce Committee to promote maritime affairs with a view to building up an effective merchant marine. Sitting with us is the Committee on Education and Labor, of which Senator Thomas of Utah is the chairman. Labor conditions by tradition have been dealt with by the Committee on Education and Labor. Heretofore labor standards on the sea have been dealt with by this committee, that is, the Committee on Commerce of the Senate, but we are making a joint movement in the matter, and have no desire except to get the facts. We are attempting to maintain a judicial attitude with reference to these matters. We know that the State Department, through its consuls and so forth, must have a great deal of information, and whatever you can give us, Mr. Saugstad, will be appreciated. Mr. SAUGSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I appear here this morning in response to your letter of December 31 in which two points were raised. One, that of any additional material, in addition to that which has already been submitted by the chairman of the Maritime Commission to this committee, and the second point being one as to the propriety of the release of this material in public form. I believe that is the object of the letter. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. SAUGSTAD. On those two points I want to say that some weeks ago we had a letter from Mr. Kennedy in which he asked in regard to the propriety of releasing or making public use of the reports which the Department gathers through its Foreign Service and currently sends to him as a routine matter of business. To that we replied that in view of the Commission's responsibility as to public policy in connection with shipping policy, we felt that it was entirely up to the Maritime Commission to make any use of the material which the Maritime Commission saw fit in the public interest, restricting that statement possibly only in this way, that if there should appear in any dispatch any statement in regard to the practices, laws, or procedures of the officers or governments of other nations in respect to either our own or their own national ships in their ports we would ask that such statements be deleted from the record. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Saugstad, we are going to be governed wholly by the desires of the State Department in that respect so you may depend upon it that we will follow your desires. Mr. SAUGSTAD. In addition to the material that Mr. Kennedy has laid before the committee and I may say that that material was checked with us before you received it-we have a large number of other cases somewhat similar. We felt that the cases submitted were the most pertinent, they were the most recent, and they were the ones that pointed most clearly to the alleged effect of labor procedure and strike psychology. During the most recent years, that is to say, during periods of disturbance on board ship, various statements were made as to what labor organizations would do upon the return of those ships to American ports, both as to what they could do to the members of the Foreign Service who had tried to abide by their instructions and maintain peace and order on board ship, and what they could do to the officers of the ships who within the law had tried to maintain the workings of the ship and law and order on board ship. That was the burden, I believe, of the first reports sent to this committee. The remainder of recent dispatches dealing with labor disturbance on board ship, then considered, were of a nature that we consider ordinary crew disturbances, such as we expect to find on board any ship in any port of any nationality at any time. I dare say there is no ship of any nationality that does not have a normal lot of disturbances among sailors while in port. Such disturbances may have no particular relationship to social philosophy or labor-organizational work. It is just a plain case of the men indulging in the usual liberties of shore leave. And we did not feel at that time that that was pertinent matter for this committee, but if the committee desires those cases in addition to more recent and more remote cases attributable to labor unrest, of course we are very happy to amplify your record with that material, and we shall furnish the committee, if desired, those cases, of which I have a sample file, gathered up here from 1929. We did not go back any further. The CHAIRMAN. In response to what you said, Mr. Saugstad, I think that your own judgment is to be relied upon. You have had a remarkable experience not alone in connection with the Department of State, but formerly with the shipping industry and the Shipping Board, so you know exactly what the committee is seeking in order to be informed, and we will trust your judgment. It is argued by the members of the C. I. O. union that conditions now are very much better; that if they are left alone to pursue their course that all these disorders will disappear. We hope that is true. But already the committee has discovered that on one line, the Black Diamond Line, according to testimony we have received, there has been a marked disorder and lack of discipline on the ships of that line. A witness from the union had testified previously that they had a very satisfactory arrangement with that line; that everything was now "apple pie. So you see our position, and we trust you to winnow out and present to us such material as you think best. Mr. SAUGSTAD. I think I can assure the committee that the conditions which obtain today at sea on American ships are serious, and the field services, that is, the foreign services of the Government which are charged with the maintenance and the carrying on of the business of a vessel in foreign ports, need the constructive and the sympathetic assistance of the whole Government. I believe I can amplify by saying that because of the lack of judicial decision on some of these border line questions which lie within the scope of social legislation and labor legislation, we have been reluctant to issue any hard and fast consular instructions, at least during the Fast 2 years. We have during the last 2 years, at least in conformity with the general approaching front of social philosophy as to labor and to conditions at sea as we see them in other countries, tried to instruct our consuls as to individual judgment in procedure. This thing is not all a matter of law. It is a matter of adjustment of our own conditions and our own procedures I believe, to conditions as they obtain. We must recognize that seagoing personnel is the first type of labor to be subjected to other influences than our own national influences. I may now step out of the character of a Government official and step back to the time when I was the personnel officer of a large fleet of ships, when I did nothing for years but to deal with the question of the hiring and firing and adjustment of personnel on board on a fleet of 35 ships. I learned early that we cannot dictate entirely these processes from our own national viewpoint. We must accept the broader influences of the whole world which lie behind the industry which we call international shipping. We saw in the Baltimore case in regard to the Algic that the use of the word "mutiny" came under the judicial decision. That was discussed, and in the judge's charge, which I hope you have read, the law was quite sharply defined. The CHAIRMAN. Is there not in addition to the written law a tradition of the sea, the law of the sea, which is quite generally recognized by all nations? Mr. SAUGSTAD. The master of a vessel administers the law of the sea so far as that law supports him. All shipping documents, including the vessel's documents, are closely alined with the identity of the man who actually is responsible for the procedure of the vessel. That goes for the Government documents, that goes for the charter 32437-38-pt. 5-7 parties, that goes for the bills of lading, and the various documents under which a ship operates and under which the financing of the business of a ship is conducted in international financial channels. For that reason the whole thing falls back upon the authority of the master, and through his cfficers down to the crew. The CHAIRMAN. Does that tradition or practical application of common law, plus statutory law, make the master really the dictator on the ship right through so far as his orders are lawful? Mr. SAUGSTAD. I believe under the law that it does so far as the law supports him. I think as a practical matter we should recognize that since vessels have been and are equipped with radio apparatus and that the vessels have contact with the shore organization, that there is thereby created an additional influence in the matter of the master's responsibility toward his owners. That is to say, a master goes to sea. He realizes that in a pinch he may radio his owners as to procedure. That may effect administration of discipline at least between the master and the owners of the vessel. That situation may mitigate the master's effectiveness on matters of discipline at sea. Up to that point there is no question that when the ship is out of sight of land there was but one ruler, and that is the master. But that does not change the status and responsibility of the master as a matter of law. Senator ELLENDER. But is not the law which applies the law of the country whose flag is flown on the ship? For instance, suppose a ship is at sea, flying the American flag, is it not the law of the United States that covers in case of any mutiny or anything like that? Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. And the master himself would have no jurisdiction except to obey that law? Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. And in case any crime is committed the law that governs is the law of the country whose flag is being flown on the ship? Mr. SAUGSTAD. Yes. I have here a decision referring to the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, as to the extent of it, and the position of the vessel at sea or in any foreign port. The CHAIRMAN. Is it an opinion which is quite generally supported, and is it your belief that that opinion contained the complete statement of the matter in question? Mr. SAUGSTAD. I believe, Mr. Caffee, that this statement was included in the judge's charge in the Algic case, was it not, that he rested his case on it? Mr. CAFFEE. I do not think it was specifically referred to, but it was a Supreme Court decision, a very important decision. Mr. SAUGSTAD. At any rate if you want a citation for this position in the record we will secure the proper citation and insert it. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We shall be glad to have you do so. It is understood, Senator Thomas, that a certain amount of material which will be given us this morning is confidential, but we are going to make a complete report, and Mr. Saugstad will go over it tomorrow to make it confirm to the wishes of the State Department. (The citation presented by Mr. Saugstad for the record is here! printed in full as follows:) In reply refer to FA 195.8 Padnsay DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Subject: Offenses committed within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. SIRS: There is enclosed for your information and guidance a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 567, April 10, 1933, in the case of the United States of America, Appellant, versus Santos Flores. This decision upholds the principle, that the courts of the United States may have jurisdiction over offenses committed on American vessels while in foreign waters. Very truly yours, WILBUR J. CARR (For the Secretary of State). Enclosure: Decision of Supreme Court, No. 567, April 10, 1933. Consulate file No. 885.8. Cross reference file No. 804.3. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 567.-October Term, 1932 The United States of America, Appellant, vs. Santos Flores. Appeal From the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [April 10, 1933] Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. By indictment found in the District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, it was charged that appellee, a citizen of the United States murdered another citizen of the United States upon the S. S. "Padnsay", an American vessel, while at anchor in the Port of Matadi, in the Belgian Congo, a place subject to the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Belgium, and that appellee, after the commission of the crime, was first brought into the Port of Philadelphia, a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. By stipulation it was conceded, as though stated in a bill of particulars, that the "Padnsay", at the time of the offense charged, was unloading, being attached to the shore by cables, at a point two hundred and fifty miles inland from the mouth of the river. The District Court, following its earlier decision in United States ex rel Maro v. Mathues, 21 F. (2d) 533, affirmed, 27 F. (2d) 518, sustained a demurrer to the indictment and discharged the prisoner on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to try the offense charged. Fed. The case comes here by direct appeal under the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1264, 18 U. S. Č. § 682 and § 238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by Act of February 13, 1925, 28 U. S. C. $335, the court below certifying that its decision was founded upon its construction of § 2721 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. § 451. Sections 273 and 275 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. §§ 452, 454, define murder and fix its punishment. Section 272, upon the construction of which the court below rested its decision, makes punishable offenses defined by other sections of the Criminal Code, among other cases, "when committed within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States" or any of its nationals. And by § 41 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 102, venue to try offenses "committed upon the high seas or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district," is "in the district where the offender is found or into which he is first brought." As the offense charged here was committed on board a vessel lying outside the territorial jurisdiction of a state, see Wynn v. United States, 217 U. S. 234; United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 265, and within that of a foreign sovereignty, the court below was without jurisdiction to try and punish the offense unless it was within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. 1 § 272. "The crimes and offenses defined in this chapter shall be punished as herein prescribed: "First: When committed upon the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, or when committed within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, or District thereof... |