men chosen by the unions. The question naturally arises, what unions? The National Maritime Union does not represent all seamen, hence more strife. Third, it does not follow that members of unions, even if of firstclass caliber as seamen, would be good instructors for training others. Fourth. It seems illogical to set up an untried agency at great expense to train seamen, the individual members of which may each have different ideas and therefore apt not to do a good job, when there are existing Federal agencies fully equipped to do the training and by long experience have had marked success in so doing. I therefore feel that if training of fresh young men for the merchant service is to be undertaken, and this training augmented by the training of presently engaged seamen, it should be done by either the Navy or the Coast Guard. It should be remembered that training has two objectives: First, to raise the standards of skill and thereby thoroughly teach seamen their jobs; and second, to instill into them a high sense of duty and loyalty to their calling and prompt obedience to the orders of the master and the officers placed over them. Both the Navy and the Coast Guard are eminently fitted for doing this, in fact are doing it constantly for the respective services. I for one, and I feel justified in saying my associates on the Maritime Commission are in accord, prefer the Coast Guard for the purpose of training for the merchant service for the following reasons: First, the Coast Guard is in close touch with the merchant marine; second, the duties of the Coast Guard at sea are such that by their very nature, such as the ice patrol, aiding ships in distress, rescuing seamen, destroying derelicts, and so forth, produce hardy sailors; and third, the Coast Guard does not and cannot emphasize the military as the Navy does and should. The latter is a purely military organization and at sea carries on purely military routine as it should to be efficient, which it is. While each of these services maintains discipline, the Coast Guard is freer to give more attention to the job of training than the Navy is. In addition, I may say that the more the Navy keeps away from side issues, the better it is; they have enough to do with their own jobs. And this proposed training job is right in line with the Coast Guard's duties. In this connection, it should be remembered that we are now in the midst of building up a great defensive sea power, of which the merchant marine must be regarded as an essential part. It is unquestionably, therefore, a Federal function to see that this auxiliary is efficient, not only for carrying on commercial functions but to be ready to take its place in the performance of the essential duties of a naval auxiliary in time of emergency, The CHAIRMAN. Why do you say that a merchant marine is essential to the development of a navy? Rear Admiral WILEY. It is a part of sea power; you cannot run the Navy in time of war, without auxiliaries. The CHAIRMAN. I saw a statement, yesterday, that the Navy would need 1,200 merchant-marine vessels, in order to carry on its activities properly. Rear Admiral WILEY. Of course, I am a little out of touch with the latest requirements of the Navy in that respect. But at least, they need a very efficient, modern merchant service, with proper proportions, as auxiliaries. The CHAIRMAN. When you say that they need it, do you mean it is absolutely essential? You Rear Admiral WILEY. Absolutely essential to the proper performance or the proper use of the Navy in time of emergency. cannot get along without it. The CHAIRMAN. Do we have enough ships under the American flag today, to render that auxiliary service? Rear Admiral WILEY. We do not have enough modern ships; we are very deficient in that respect. The CHAIRMAN. We have 417,000 tons of all sizes of merchant ships under 10 years of age, and that is all we have. Rear Admiral WILEY. Of course that includes all sizes, and ships of varying tonnages. The CHAIRMAN. However, the total is only 41 ships. Rear Admiral WILEY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. While the British have 704 ships, Germany 132, Japan 115, France 64, Italy 42, and the United States 41. Then, as regards tonnage, the British have 4,407,000 tons; Germany, 947,000; Japan, 740,000; France, 500,000; Italy, 433,000; and the United States, 417,000-one-tenth of the British strength. Senator THOMAS of Utah. If our Navy is equal to the British Navy in tonnage but our merchant marine is only one-tenth of the British merchant marine, is that difference great enough to make our Navy less effective than the British Navy? Rear Admiral WILEY. Speaking as a merchant marine commissioner, I prefer not to give any expert opinion on that. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Would we have competition with the transport service, in getting ships, in case we should have a large task to do again? The Army also needs transports, of course. Rear Admiral WILEY. Yes. And they are very badly off, so far as transports are concerned. Senator THOMAS of Utah. So if we went to war tomorrow, we would have to make as many mistakes as we made during the World War, in view of that situation? Rear Admiral WILEY. We would have to have many more ships. Senator THOMAS of Utah. And that would mean that we would probably get emotional and build more ships? Rear Admiral WILEY. Very likely. The CHAIRMAN. One of our difficulties today is that we built poor ships during the World War, and now we are having difficulty getting rid of them or trying to use them. Senator THOMAS of Utah. During the World War, those of us who saw the mobilization in its various phases, and then in later years the bringing together of the C. C. C. camps, learned that so far as the Army is concerned, they have actually learned something, whether they know it or not, as the result of the war, in the way of handling and organizing men. Could we say the same of the Navy and Coast Guard and other marine organizations? Could we do a job today, comparatively as much better as the job the Army did in connection with the setting up of the C. C. C. camps, do you believe? Rear Admiral WILEY. Well, I should think we should; we are not very good if we could not. Senator THOMAS of Utah. We have increased personnel efficiency, have we? Rear Admiral WILEY. Oh, undoubtedly we have, I think. I think the Navy's personnel efficiency is becoming greater all the time. Of course, I have been out of the active service for 9 years; but that is my belief of the situation. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Could you say that for our merchant marine, too? Rear Admiral WILEY. Today? Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes; comparatively speaking? Rear Admiral WILEY. No; I would not say that. No, sir. Rear Admiral WILEY. NO. I think a great many good seamen have left the sea. And in that connection, it seems to me that we need to consider the officers as well as the seamen. I do not think the officers are up to the mark. There is so much division of authority, you know, that no one agency is responsible for these things and for the efficiency; and consequently the situation is not good. That is always the case where there is divided authority or lack of authority. The CHAIRMAN. It is all rather haphazard, is it not? Rear Admiral WILEY. Yes; rather bad. I am glad you asked that question. Because I think that even though we do this training in both parts, as I have suggested, unless we do away with these private hiring halls, we are not going to make the progress that we should. It was the same when the owners had these hiring halls, you know. Now that the seamen have the hiring halls, it is just as bad. There is always bitterness and you are not going to have discipline unless you have some decent feeling, unless your relationships are decent. Speaking as a naval officer, experience in going to sea was about the only thing I knew, when I was in the service. And at sea, discipline is not based on carrying out or exercising authority under harsh laws. The discipline in the Navy is based on a decent understanding and fine relationship between the men and the officers. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is not that the case in every walk of life? Rear Admiral WILEY. It should be. Senator THOMAS of Utah. And even in the Army, does not discipline fall down if you do not have that? Rear Admiral WILEY. Of course. I am only speaking for the Navy, but I take it for granted that the Army is the same. The But that condition does not exist in the merchant service. It is not the fault of the men any more than it is of the owners. officers are placed in a very, very undesirable position; because they never know whether the owners are going to support them or not, if they have to take rather severe measures. The CHAIRMAN. They are inclined to think that the owners are not going to support them, are they? Rear Admiral WILEY. Sometimes they have every reason to believe that they will not. Now, we have authority to do a great deal toward making the owners more tolerant and sensible and less stupid; but we do not have any authority to do anything about either the licensed or the unlicensed personnel. I think we should have that authority. I think all the functions that pertain to the seagoing personnel should come under the authority of the Maritime Commission. It is charged with responsibility for seeing that we acquire a modern, efficient merchant marine, manned by trained and efficient personnel. Of course, that means a disciplined personnel. But we do not have any authority whatsoever to do anything other than see that the sailor comes into his own. But we cannot do anything toward discipling him. And when I say "the sailor," that term includes the masters and the officers. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, you spoke about the hiring halls. The navigation laws are very specific in placing the responsibility for the selection and providing of personnel upon the shipping commissioners, are they not? Rear Admiral WILEY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But in these contracts which are being made between the C. I. O. and the various shipping companies, the hiring hall is recognized, and dependence is placed upon it for supplying the men. In short, the owners have consented to waiving the law; and they have no right to do that, when they make a contract. But the result of the system, as I understand it, is this: While it is denied by the unions that they want the strict rotation system, the fact remains that actually they are using a kind of rotation. Therefore the shipmaster or the ship company are no longer sure they can retain men who have been with them for years; they must put them "on the beach," as the phrase is, and bring in men from the hiring halls to take their places. Now, does that plan make for well-selected and efficient personnel? Rear Admiral WILEY. It certainly does not, sir. In carrying out such authority as we have under the Maritime Act of 1936 in regard to the minimum manning and wage scales and working conditions for the subsidized vessels, we still continue to run 38 ships for the account of the Commission, by managing agents. And with those ships and the ships that we subsidized, we have done what we could to offer inducements, or we have offered inducements, for a continuous service. But I do not know whether or not it will be effective. Of course, it could not be effective if this thing goes on. I would not like to have myself placed, as Commissioner, in the position of being an antiunionist. I have been placed out in front in that position before. But as a matter of fact, I am a pretty good organized-labor man. I am a good friend of the workingman-probably one of the best friends the sailor had, during my service in the Navy. I am still a friend of the sailor. The sailor will never come into his own unless these private hiring halls are done away with. He does not get fair treatment. He would not get fair treatment under any system such as is working today, regardless of who are the leaders or the so-called leaders. After all, it seems to me that this is a Federal function, and consequently the Government should look out for the sailorman and build up his morale. What I suggest does not in any way interfere with any legal right of any labor organization. And I feel that they can ask for no more. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Admiral, would you mind taking a minute to tell us how the hiring hall worked when the owners administered it? Rear Admiral WILEY. They used a book. As I understand, it was called the bluebook. You understand that what I say is only what I have been told; I am not an authority on this matter. And, under those conditions, the sailor was not allowed on board any ship belonging to the Ship Owners' Association unless he possessed one of those books. In other words, it was a closed shop, on either side. Senator THOMAS of Utah. I see. Rear Admiral WILEY. Then along came this general strike on the Pacific in 1934; and that strike was settled by a board. The board provided in its settlement that in the future the hiring hall for the seamen should be under joint control. Incidentally, this was the situation on the west coast, you understand. I am speaking of the settlement that was made out there. And in connection with the joint control that I just spoke of, it was provided, as I recall, that there should be three members representative of the unions and three representative of the shipowners. That is my recollection; I may be mistaken regarding the number. But the dispatcher was to be a representative of the unions. Well, through this joint-control device, the unions wrested control of the hiring halls; because the dispatcher is the man who sends the men down to fill vacancies or to be taken aboard ship. If the master should send back one of those men and say, "We prefer somebody else; we know this man and know that he is not efficient for this job," then the reply would be, "There is nobody else to send." You can understand that situation; that is an easy way of avoiding it. But it appears to me that there is no justification for violation of the Federal law, whether the unions want it or whether the shipowners want it. All of the suggestions that I make are suggestions that, in different language, have already been made before your committee, sir, by old Andrew Furuseth. And you gentlemen who knew Andrew Furuseth know that he was a very fine, honorable gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; a wonderful man. Rear Admiral WILEY. He was always working for the uplift of the sailor. He is the man who deserves, and receives, I suppose, except from these modern leaders, the credit for having taken the sailor out of chains, as the saying is. The CHAIRMAN. He was responsible for the La Follette Act. Rear Admiral WILEY. I should just like to read to you here, in that connection, one of the recommendations I am making as to the amending of section 4508 of the Revised Statutes, which deals with the general duties of a shipping commissioner. There is only one change from what it is at present. [Reading:] SEC. 4508. The general duties of a shipping commission shall be: Second. To afford facilities for engaging seamen by providing a shipping office exclusively under his control, where masters of vessels may choose their crews and where seamen may choose such engagements as are available to |