The CHAIRMAN. Ought there not be some way for the efficient training of sailors, in order to take care of the future? I suppose some of these men who are now in the service are growing old.

Mr. LUNDEBERG. They can train the men aboard the vessels. As I stated before, I do not believe that the way they issue certificates to these men is severe enough. For instance, to make an able-bodied seaman, it should be 3 years before he can apply for a certificate as able-bodied seaman. Under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 a man can become an able-bodied seaman after 12 months' service, under certain conditions. There is no man, after 12 months, who is qualified to sail as an able-bodied seaman, so I believe that the proper thing to do is to train the men right aboard the ships. If the American shipowners or the Government wanted to spend money on that, they could put two deck boys on every ship, and let them sail for a year as deck boys. Then, after having sailed for a year as deck boys, they could go as ordinary seamen for another 2 years. By the time they have had 3 years, they could go before an inspection board, and they would be a little better qualified.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposed to the training section of this bill?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I believe there is a better way to do it than through that training section.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it desirable to have a systematic method of training?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. A systematic method of training is desirable. You could have a systematic method of training right aboard the merchant marine vessels as they have on the European vessels.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the way they used to make doctors. They would put a young man in a doctor's office and after a while he was a doctor. But society came to disbelieve in that kind of nonsense. Do you not think it would be a good idea if the Government could have a place where some of the sailors could be given real training, so that when they got through they would be competent oarsmen, and could perform all the other functions of a sailor's work? Is not that desirable? Is there any objection to it?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. Yes. I think it would be a waste of the taxpayers' money to establish a lot of schools. I cannot see what is wrong with this way of training, the way I got it. When I became an ablebodied seaman, I had to sail 12 months as a deck boy, 12 months more. as a young man, and then 12 months more as an ordinary seaman. After 36 months, if in the judgment of the master I was an able-bodied seaman, he notified the authorities in writing that I was qualified.

The CHAIRMAN. To maintain that extra crew would cost money. You could, possibly at the same cost, put a man in an institution where there was training. Would not that be a desirable thing? Mr. LUNDEBERG. No. I do not believe that they can train sailors ashore.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Where were you trained, Mr. Lundenberg?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. In deep-water sailing ships.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. What country?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. Out of Norway.

The CHAIRMAN. You asked me a moment ago, Senator Vandenberg, about the report from the Steamboat Inspection Service.

Senator VANDENBERG. The so-called Jones report.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Lundeberg. Did you talk to Mr. Jones?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I talked to him in San Francisco.

The CHAIRMAN. Has he made his full report?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. No; I do not think he has. He told me that he had to go to Seattle. Part of the crew came back on the President McKinley, but so many men volunteered to stay by the vessel and see if they could save the vessel, and they were coming in on another vessel, together with the master.

The CHAIRMAN. We have certain reports which, it now develops, are preliminary reports. The full report on the Hoover, it seems, will not be available for a month. Further examinations must be made.

Senator VANDENBERG. Are you satisfied, Mr. Lundeberg, that when the so-called Jones report is made, it will be a fair and reliable. report?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I believe it will, because it is taken in the Federal court under oath, and I believe it will be a fair report.

Senator VANDENBERG. Do you think we would be justified in taking the Jones report as reliable?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. Yes. The hearing was conducted open to the public, and testimony was taken from the crew and officers. I do not know whether they took any from the passengers, but I hope they did.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the way the examination was made in San Francisco, in the manner you suggest?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. That is the way the examination was conducted. The CHAIRMAN. Then, when this report comes in, you would be inclined to think that it would be a dependable and reliable report.. Mr. LUNDEBERG. Yes.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. You mentioned a moment ago that when a ship struck the pay of the men stopped, under our American law and our American system. Now you have just said that part of the Hoover's crew volunteered to remain back to see what they could do for the ship.

Mr. LUNDEBERG. Yes.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you mean that those men would be working for nothing all that time?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. No. They will get paid, because the master asked them to stay by the vessel to try to save the property for the company itself.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you think that if there had been disorder on the ship, as it has been pointed out in so many reports, bad as it was, the captain would call for volunteers to stay with him?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. No. If it was such a tough crew as described in the papers, I do not imagine any master would ask them to stay by. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Could he have orered them to stay by, or did he have to call for volunteers?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. He could not order them to stand by after the passengers and the gear were ashore. They volunteered. They asked for volunteers.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is, he called for volunteers.

Mr. LUNDEBERG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Some of the complaints made on shore by the passengers were to the effect that they could not be fed, that the ship's cooks would not prepare the food. Would they be under obligation to do it, if they were shipwrecked in that way? Would these cooks be expected to do this?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. Yes. If a man was ashore like that, and shipwrecked, a man would be expected to do that, or should do that. The CHAIRMAN. Let me turn from that for a moment. We must hurry on if we can.

What is your feeling about the hiring halls?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I feel that the way we conduct shipping on the Pacific coast today is the only satisfactory way to handle it, and even the shipowners agree to that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in the C. I. O. contract?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I do not know anything about the C. I. O. contract. We had that on the Pacific coast for 3 years before they even thought of the C. I. O. in American industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this the method you have been using? I read from page 420 of the hearings before the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Education and Labor of the United States Senate, January 11, 1938.

Sec. 1. While this agreement is in force, the company agrees to secure all the unlicensed personnel required for the manning of its vessels through the hiring halls maintained by the union exclusively, and the union in turn agrees to furnish men who are properly certificated under the law.

Is that the way you have been doing?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I imagine this is copied more or less from our agreement. Our agreement reads that the shipowners will hire men at the offices of the Sailors Union of the Pacific. They are the offices, not the hiring halls. They come up to the Sailors Union office, and they have dispatchers, and they get the men. We then obligate ourselves to furnish competent men.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the system which has been used?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. That is the system which has been used on the Pacific coast since the 1934 strike. That is one of the things we took. They did not give that to us.

The CHAIRMAN. These hiring halls, as I understand it, are in the headquarters of the union, are they not?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. No. I cannot compare our conditions with those, because I do not know how it is, but I will explain how our system works on the Pacific coast. After all, we have had it for 3 years. The headquarters of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific are in San Francisco. We have an office in the port of Vancouver, B. C., an office in Seattle, Wash., Gray's Harbor, Portland, Oreg., San Francisco, San Pedro, and Honolulu. We also have an office in New York to furnish men to west coast ships. When a mate on board a vessel wants 2 or 3 sailors, or 10 sailors, he calls up the Sailors' Union office in the various ports he might be in, and we send him down whatever he asks for 2 men, 3 men, or 10 men-and we oblige ourselves to furnish competent men. If a man goes aboard ship drunk, the mate fires him. If he is not competent, the mate can also fire him. So, they have the privilege of rejecting a man, if a man cannot "cut the mustard."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lundeberg, is there not a law on the statute books about the hiring of men?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I understand that under the statute the shipping commissioner is supposed to do something.

The CHAIRMAN. That has been the law since 1872. Under the law the general duties of the shipping commissioner are, first, to afford facilities for engaging seamen by keeping a register of their names and characters; second, to superintend their engagement and discharge in the manner prescribed by law; third, to provide means for securing the presence on board at the proper time of the men who are so engaged.

Was not that a satisfactory arrangement?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. It might have been. It never was used, to my knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. It never was used?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. It never was used since I started to sail on American vessels. They never hired men

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know about your section, but it was used in New York.

Mr. LUNDEBERG. It was? I do not think they would be able to do it as well as we can do it, and I will tell you the reason why. The man who conducts the dispatch of seamen out of our hall is elected by the membership on a referendum vote. He is responsible to the membership. If he did something out of line, for instance, favored anyone, or did something that was not right, that man could be taken off that job within 2 hours. That is an honest way. Now, the way it was conducted before, not only under the shipowners' hiring halls, but also under the Shipping Board, there were a lot of favors done.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right about that, Mr. Lundeberg, but you may recall that the owners' hiring hall plan was resisted by a sailor, and the matter was taken to court.

Mr. LUNDEBERG. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And the court held, in Anderson v. Shipowners Association, that the hiring hall was in restraint of trade, and was a violation of the law. Why is the hiring hall that you are talking about legal if the other one was not?

Mr. LUNDEBERG. I am not familiar with the law. I know that we went to court about it in

The CHAIRMAN. 1926.

Mr. LUNDEBERG. We first had it in the California courts, both in the district court and the circuit court of appeals. Then Judge Sutherland, in November 1926, reversed the decision of the lower courts and told them to go to work on it again. However, the District Court of California, and also the circuit court of appeals down there, did not see fit to revise it. They certainly did not change their opinion about it. They stopped registering the men, however, after the decision was handed down by Judge Sutherland.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bailey, if this were the law, and the shipping commissioner were shipping the men, and the court held that the hiring hall was illegal, I suppose that the men on a given line could contract together about that, could they not?

Senator BAILEY. Have you read the New York Times this morning? If so, you will see that the Court of Appeals of the State of New

York has upheld the legality of the closed-shop law. That is on the front page of the New York Times.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the same thing, is it not?

Senator BAILEY. Of course, the legality of the closed shop runs directly into that old doctrine of restraint of trade. The closed shop is restraint of trade. That is to say, I could not get my job unless I belonged to the union. That was the old law, but the State of New York yesterday-I have not read the opinion, because it is not in the paper, but the digest of it is in the newspaper report-I take it that we are running directly into that now.

Take the National Labor Relations Act, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court did not pass precisely on that point. It did not say how it would be if some man should come in and say, "I was excluded from my job because I did not belong to the union. But it did say that men who do not belong to the union, in a minority in a trade or employment, are bound by the collective bargaining agreement, and it went further and said that that was so related to interstate commerce that it gave Congress jurisdiction to pass the act on the ground that that was to eliminate obstructions to commerce. There has been some modification of judicial opinion on those subjects. I do not think we can avoid the conclusion that there is a decided modification in labor legislation and adjudications on this question of restraint of trade. Twenty years ago I can see how they would throw out the law, just as they did; but now it is a serious question whether they will or not.

To go a little further, I understand now that under the National Labor Relations Act an employer no longer has the right to discharge the employee. It is referred to the National Labor Relations Board, and they can pass upon the righteousness of it, in the exercise of their discretion. That also is restraint of trade. That gives it to somebody else, primarily to the union to which he belongs, and secondarily to the National Labor Relations Board. So there is a great deal of modification on that doctrine of restraint of trade.

The case to which you referred, Senator, was based on the old common law, which allowed reasonable restraint of trade, and disallowed unreasonable restraint. There has never been any doctrine in the law against reasonable restraint of trade. The court decides whether it is reasonable or not. That question was considered in the Standard Oil cases, and also in the American Tobacco Co. case. Justice White handed down the opinions and laid out fully for our people the old doctrine of reasonable restraints of trade. There is your point. You could hold it to be unreasonable 20 years ago, and you could hold it to be reasonable now. That is the exercise of judgment by the Federal court. I think there is your point. What is reasonable at one time is unreasonable at another.

Senator BERRY. Mr. Lundeberg, you made reference to the restoration of the system established by Mr. Furuseth years ago, in the matter of settling differences.

Mr. LUNDEBERG. Yes.

Senator BERRY. Does that mean differences under an existing contract, or does it have to do with the establishment of new contracts? Mr. LUNDEBERG. That is under existing contracts.

Senator BERRY. That is the instrumentality used in the event of differences arising during the life of the agreement?