Senator ELLENDER. I thought you meant cases decided by the courts.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. If they are labor cases I think the recent cases are the ones we want. Of course, I hope we are in a temporary labor situation which is not going to last forever, but we have an entirely different labor status since the passage of the Wagner Act than we had before, that is sure. And the operations of the Labor Relations Board are still to be determined in the future, that is, how they are going to work. Surely any legislation which we are acting upon today would be legislation in relation to this great fundamental, would it not?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. I suppose in view of that fact, that if we could have some of the more remote cases to contrast with the present we can see how the new act is functioning.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes. As was suggested yesterday, probably the officer is just as much at fault as the laborer. If you are going to have a merchant marine you have got to have personnel to run it, that is sure. The question that is in my mind, after listening to a number of things and after observing, is as to whether the people of our country are merchant-marine conscious to the extent that the young boys will ever seek a career on the sea again, or whether we are going to be dependent upon foreigners. I have been on four American liners, but I have not yet been waited on at the table by a man who could speak English very well. I have never had an American wait on me on an American liner. If we in the United States are never going to produce any boys who are interested in becoming ship's stewards, what are we going to about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose a direct reply to that lies in this. Conditions on ships in what we may call the old days-and I do not mean by that 100 years ago, but I mean a few years ago-the physical conditions, the surroundings of the men, were such that no self-respecting American youth would submit to the living conditions. We hope that we have reached the point by our legislation that in the construction of ships and in the reconstruction of existing ships, the living quarters will be such that they will attract our boys, and of course should. In our recent laws we have provided that on subsidized freight ships 100 percent of the crew shall be Americans. On subsidized passenger ships we have the law that 90 percent of the crew must be Americans, and all the licensed officers must be Americans, but that there will be some latitude in the steward's department in order that our ships may cater to passengers of French-speaking and German-speaking and Spanish-speaking and other nationalities. But it has been the ambition, Senator Thomas, of this committee to reach the point where we could have 100 percent Americans upon our ships.

Before you came in Mr. Saugstad had discussed in an illuminating way the duties of the master and what his attitude is. I think that harmonizes with what you had in mind. He spoke of a thing which I confess I had not thought seriously of: that the master's responsibility now is somewhat divided by reason of the fact that he has the radio, and he is in contact with, or can be in contact with, the owners of the ship. But still the fact remains, I think, that so far as his orders are lawful the master of the ship is "boss"; and if he does

not function properly and if he is not supported in his acts as the master of the ship, then discipline is sure to break down.

The question now is: How far back do we care to go in this matter of the record? Have you any choice in the matter, Senator Thomas? Senator THOMAS of Utah. No; I have no choice.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose then, Mr. Saugstad, you yourself select some typical cases a few years back and then we will trust your judgment wholly as to the material, and giving us excerpts which will be of value.

Senator MALONEY. At this point I should like to ask one question which I previously asked, if I may. In this committee we are tying to find, as so many other people are, an answer to this problem of the sea. I am wondering how much conditions on the ships, conditions that the men are compelled to submit to, are responsible for troubles? I mean their living conditions, the sanitary conditions, the food and other conditions. Would you want to talk about that, or would you prefer not to do so? I ask that only because of your very unusual experience in connection with ships. I myself have the feeling that the bad conditions have been somewhat provoked by the living conditions of these men.

Mr. SAUGSTAD. You used the term "somewhat provoked." I think I endorse that statement without any question. I would not be prepared to go the whole length and say that they are the sole cause, but there is no question that conditions that obtain upon a large number of vessels have contributed very much to keeping away from such vessels the element which I believe the committee would like to see go to sea. Consequently you are inviting a type of personnel to go to sea which is not perhaps what you are trying to obtain. I mean the kind of sailors you would like to see are not actually going to sea, very largely on account of those conditions.

Those conditions, in turn, have a reason. We must not forget that so far as we are concerned in this country we acquired 2,000 ships in less than 24 months, and they were slapped together without any thought of anything else except a voyage across the North Atlantic. The great preponderance of the fleet still consists of those ships, despite the fact that those ships compete with vessels which have very largely been built since that time, and which offer living conditions and social conditions entirely different from those that our vessels were designed for. There is just no help for the present situation, as I see it. We could not possibly ask the shipowner to change these old vessels to modern conditions. It would not pay to do so. But I believe everyone is agreed that when new ships are built the conditions under which men live on board ship should be very much altered to meet modern conditions.

Senator MALONEY. I am wondering if that statement is entirely correct; if it would be unprofitable to make the changes in view of the horrible conditions with which we are familiar.

Mr. SAUGSTAD. What I have in mind, Senator, is this: I believe the majority of these ships is about ready to be let go. In other words, they are 17, 18, and 19 years old, and it is a question of commercial judgment as to whether it would pay to expend a fairly large sum of money to get these ships into condition. I am not talking now about the ships that have been built during the past 10 years. I am speaking about the ones that were built in 1919 and 1920, which are on their very last legs, so to speak.

The CHAIRMAN. We read in the newspaper this morning that Mr. Kennedy is on his way to San Francisco to seek to rehabilitate financially the Dollar Line, which has been in possession of some of our greater ships.

Senator MALONEY. I have also heard some things about them. which are not too good.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. We have in our fleet only 41 modern ships less than 10 years of age, while the British have 704 modern ships, the Germans have 132, the Japanese have 115, the French have 64, and the Italians have 42. Our ship lines have been just one jump ahead of the sheriff, and I guess the sheriff has caught up with some of them.

Senator MALONEY. I am beginning to come to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that our shipowners and operators have not a sufficient pride in their lines and their business.

The CHAIRMAN. With regard to some shipowners you can go as far as you wish and not hurt my feelings about them. Of course, the situation is a financial one, and, as Mr. Saugstad has said, most of these ships that we are now operating were built during the war. We had only 17 ships in trans-Atlantic travel at the time of the outbreak of the war. Just think of that. If it had not been for the providential fact that a number of German ships were in our ports at the time war broke out we never could have taken our expeditionary force to Europe. But there has been a combination of circumstances which has made it mighty hard for America to develop an American merchant marine. I am yet to be convinced that it can be done. However, you are the witness, Mr. Saugstad.

Now you use your judgment, then, about the excerpts from cases which may be called remote cases.

Will you continue your statement?

Mr. SAUGSTAD. I shall be very glad to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you proceed I would like to ask one question: Are the ships which we now possess, which are of the same period of construction, any worse than the ships of the same period of construction of other nations?

Mr. SAUGSTAD. I do not think so. I think we see that in the case of those nations which operate ships in the indirect trades-that is, who build ships at home and then send them abroad to operate between foreign ports only-ships that rarely return to their home port have better conditions than are found on other ships. I believe you will find that living conditions on board those ships are somewhat better, as a whole, than on ships that return to their home port regularly, where crews can be changed and where we expect a larger

turn-over.

For instance, ships of the oil-tanker type, which are at sea all the time, are inclined to have better food conditions, better living conditions, better social conditions in the terms of entertainment, libraries, radios, and so forth, than ships that merely run in the direct trade from one port to a foreign port and return. For that reason, nations, especially the northern nations, which send a great many of their ships into the indirect trades for long periods of time, are probably the leaders in these better living conditions and working conditions on board ship.

We have just received and laid before the Maritime Commission the new food regulations of Norwegian ships, and they are very com

prehensive and very thorough. We have just received a revision of the prohibition against use of liquor on board Norwegian passenger ships. These countries recognize that they must make living conditions more attractive to ships that do not return home because these nations largely use their fleets in indirect trades and in foreign countries entirely. They are, I believe, possibly better equipped than ships that are running in the direct trades. Since our particular construction has been limited to the period since the Jones-White Act of 1928, we have not made much of a dent as yet in meeting those same conditions; I mean living conditions on board ship. But my understanding is that the Maritime Commission is proceeding to inspect all its own vessels and is making all the alterations that they feel are justifiable in the ships that they expect to continue to operate. What the technical facts are, or the actual conditions, I do not know. Senator GIBSON. In the class of ships that do not return to their home ports do you include tramp freighters?

Mr. SAUGSTAD. I am thinking more specifically, Senator, of the tanker trade. The tanker trade is the big influence in this direction. The other ships that I have in mind are really in liner services, because they stay on definite routes for 1 or 2 or 3 years. The tramp ships are still itinerants, and I would not want to say that the tramp ships carry the improvements of the ships engaged in liner trade. Usually a tramp ship is a ship which has a lower market value and is picked up from other lines. I think a minimum number of ships are designed and built for the tramp service, at least, at this time. As long as war-built tonnage is available I believe that certain tramp-ship countries rely very largely on those ships for their tonnage requirements.

Senator GIBSON. In building a merchant marine is it not true that the Japanese Nation is making more rapid strides than almost any other nation?

Mr. SAUGSTAD. Do you mean in terms of equipment?
Senator GIBSON. Of ships and equipment too.

Mr. SAUGSTAD. You do not mean in numbers?

Senator GIBSON. The numbers and the equipment.

Mr. SAUGSTAD. I am not prepared to say what the numerical position is, but there is no question but that the construction under the 1932-35 program, brought out a very fine group of ships, and a subsequent program brought out a smaller group, ships which were considered among the most successful group construction projects that we have ever had. I testified at length on that subject before the Merchant Marine Committee of the House 2 years ago at the time the program was under way. Since that time there have been projects of, I believe, two more similar construction programs in Japan. I am not certain that either has gone into effect. But the first two brought out a number of very high-class, very fast, and supposedly very efficient ships.

Senator GIBSON. Well equipped?

Mr. SAUGSTAD. Well equipped.

Senator GIBSON. Is that not true of Germany also?

Mr. SAUGSTAD. I believe so.

The CHAIRMAN. Now to return to the labor conditions.

Senator GIBSON. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, Senator. I am glad you asked the questions you did, because we will need this information.

Have you more you wish to say now on the labor matter, Mr. Saugstad?

Mr. SAUGSTAD. I do not believe I have anything else to say, Senator. In view of the changing philosophy that is going on at the present time in this country, as well as in other countries, I might read a paragraph or two from a statement that I made before the American Merchant Marine Conference in Boston, Mass., September 29, 1936, which relates more nearly to the social requirements and development than it does to anything else, because it points toward a different era at sea. We are right now in the development stages of that, and it is very difficult for us to answer the questions that are asked by the consular service, in foreign ports, because there is no fixation to the present development that we can rest on.

I think if I may insert in the record about two paragraphs here as a summary of some things we see in the offing, and which I believe should properly be a part of the present considerations of this Government, it would be well to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have you do that, Mr. Saugstad.

Mr. SAUGSTAD. This statement is from an address made before the Propellor Club at the American Merchant Marine Conference in Boston, Mass., on September 29, 1936, and it reads as follows:

Finally, may I point to one more factor in connection with the operation of subsidized shipping, a factor which many of us believe is part of a world-wide movement, a factor which is becoming recognized in the costs of operation of ships and which recently has become measurable in terms of public expenditures required to meet it. I refer to the increasing adoption of martiime nations of social legislation as applied to sea-going personnel. Personally, I believe that no problem in shipping at this time is more potent in its possibilities, or will require more intelligent management by those charged with the administration of national policy in regard to shipping. Systems of working conditions, wages, manning scales, social insurance, pensions, and forms of compensation are in force in maritime countries and in some countries they are part of the subsidy system. Without discussing the discernible advancing front of this movement in international shipping, I may say that at the Preliminary Maritime Session of the International Labor Conference, held at Geneva in 1935, the question of an international convention on manning and the adoption of a 48-hour week was discussed largely on the basis of the French 8-hour law which has been in force for a number of years and which is consistently used by French statesmen in support of the subsidy system of that nation. Since last November, however, the French Government has adopted a 40-hour week, and the proposed application of this, plus other concessions to sea-going personnel, has now been recognized by the French Parliament in terms of extra appropriation and extra subsidy. For the current year, the regular budget of the French Government covering merchant marine services carried roughly an amount of 475 million francs. During the past 60 days, an additional allowance of 110 million francs has been allotted by Parliament simply to meet the additional charges imposed upon French shipowners by the new 40-hour week, increase in pay, allowance for overtime, and vacation with pay. In other words, of a total annual appropriation now available to French shipping of nearly 600 million francs, or about 40 million dollars, more than 20 percent is chargeable to social legislation.

I insert that in the record, Mr. Chairman, because it summarizes a number of conferences held at Geneva, at which the United States was represented, and from which emanated six resolutions as to working conditions, manning scales, pay, and other conditions under which sailors work. Those conventions eventually will be laid before the Senate for consideration.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Where are they now?