Relations Act, definitely preferred the administrative procedure to the more old-fashioned definition of a crime and vindication of it in the criminal courts.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Madden, suppose this title X were enacted as it is, would it give the National Mediation Board more power over maritime labor than it now has over railroad labor?

Mr. MADDEN. No. I suppose it would give it definitely less power, because the statute, even as now drafted, certainly saves to the National Labor Relations Board a good deal of power. The objective is really an objective to the ambiguity and possible conflict, and to the overlapping which might occur under the bill as now drafted. Apparently what the Maritime Commission intended was that the National Labor Relations Act should apply, and that the Board should still see to it that these unfair labor practices do not occur in the maritime industry, and would still see to the selection of representatives by employees in the maritime industry. From that point on the matter of the mediation of disputes relating to wages and hours and working conditions, and the machinery for the settlement of those disputes, would be in the other Board.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Senate that in the consideration of the labor features of this bill before us there shall be a joint hearing by the Committee on Education and Labor as well as the Commerce Committee I may ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Thomas], if he has any questions to ask Mr. Madden?

Senator THOMAS. I merely have this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Madden draw up suggested amendments consistent with the testimony which he has given here, for our consideration, if that is agreeable to him and to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like that very much. I wish he would take the bill as is and make his suggested changes in such a way that we can understand what his criticisms are and what his suggestions Is that what you had in mind, Senator?

are.

Senator THOMAS. Yes; so we would have it in black and white.
Mr. MADDEN. I shall be very glad to do that.

Senator THOMAS. The more we bring these various acts into harmony, as you have stated, Mr. Madden, the less likelihood there is of the occurrence of disputes between conflicting jurisdictions, which of course always results in confusion when troubles of that kind occur. Mr. MADDEN. Yes. Certainly whatever is done with it should be done so clearly that nobody can say that one board is trespassing upon the other board's jurisdiction or going into the other board's field. Senator THOMAS. That is correct.

Senator VANDENBERG. Do I understand, Mr. Madden, that with the ambiguities eliminated you favor the general principle of applying the railway mediation theory to the maritime situation?

Mr. MADDEN. Senator, I am hardly prepared to speak on that. Frankly I think there are grave differences between the maritime situation, where unionization is fairly new and where there are still a number of unfair labor practices going on, and where there is a definite split in the labor movement itself with reference to the unions which should predominate there. I feel sure that the stabilized condition which existed in the railways and among railway labor at the time this legislation went into effect there, with unions old and experienced

and disciplined, does not at all exist in the maritime industry, and I think that the most that one can say is this-that the conditions are so essentially different that one could not be sure that the same machinery which works well in the railroad industry would also work well in the maritime industry.

Do let me insist that I am no expert on that. That is simply my own thought, based upon conditions which I suppose are just as obvious to you gentlemen as they are to me.

Senator VANDENBERG. Might not the absence of these stabilizing factors be more af a reason rather than less for mediation legislation? Mr. MADDEN. Certainly no one could have any objection to mediation as such. I mean there ought to be more and better mediation, the provisions for set waiting periods and that sort of thing. It may well be that the companies are not disciplined to that kind of thing, and that the men are not disciplined to that kind of thing, and that there would be some stress and strain there which perhaps would be unexpected.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been pointed out here by Mr. Kennedy and others that unless there can be some adjustment in settlement of the labor conditions on the sea, that the contemplated program of rehabilitating the merchant marine will be defeated. Does not that fact, if it is a fact, mean that so far as we can we should go forward with some program to hasten that stability?

Mr. MADDEN. There cannot be any question about that, Senator, that anything that can practically be done ought to be done. I do not know what alternative there is before you. I understand that in some places, by voluntary agreement of the employers and the unions, port committees have been set up which deal promptly and quite satisfactorily with these irritations which sometimes result in grave troubles. I think it always true that if you get your arbitration by the voluntary agreement of the parties it will be better received than it will if it is imposed upon the parties by the Government. In other words, if these unions should themselves set up port committees promptly to investigate current grievances you would get quicker action than you could possibly get out of any governmental machinery, and the employees having themselves had a part in the set-up of these committees could not possibly have any kick coming as to the treatment they got under them.

It is the same old problem, I suppose, of not having any more government than you need to get the job done.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Guffey has pending in the Committee on Education and Labor, what I am told is a very interesting bill relating to labor relations. You must have some idea, Senator Guffey, that you wish to develop.

Senator GUFFEY. Have you had a chance, Mr. Madden, to study and analyze that bill as cleverly and ably as you have analyzed the recommendations of the Maritime Commission?

Mr. MADDEN. Was that the bill, Senator, that was proposed last

year?

Senator GUFFEY. Yes; but the committee print is now before the committee.

Mr MADDEN. I do not know those changes, Senator. We had your bill before us last year, and we did make some study of it, and, as I recall, we made an analysis of it.

Senator GUFFEY. If you are furnished with copies of the bill, as amended, will you have an analysis made together with your criticisms of the bill?

Mr. MADDEN. I shall be glad to.

Senator GUFFEY. That is all I wanted, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Madden.

The next witness is Mr. Joseph Curran, of the New York Maritime Council.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CURRAN, NEW YORK MARITIME COUNCIL, ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curran, will you state your name for the record?

Mr. CURRAN. Joseph Curran. I am acting president of the National Maritime Union.

The CHAIRMAN. What have you to say about the bill, Mr. Curran? Mr. CURRAN. I wish to make a statement on the bill as it deals with labor and other provisions. What I have to say in the statement which I shall make represents the views of the National Maritime Union, the Masters, Mates and Pilots Union, the Industrial Shipyard Workers, the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union of the Pacific Coast, Marine Fireman and Oil Tenders Union of the Pacific Coast. After making a careful analysis of the bill we prepared a statement.

When it was first rumored that the Congress and the shipowners were preparing coercive legislation for the marine unions, we predicted that its introduction at this session of Congress would be used by the shipowners as an excuse for delaying or breaking off contract negotiations.

That prediction, we see now, was correct. On December 2, the day on which hearings on one of the bills started, the American Radio Telegraphists Association, one of our component organizations, received the following letter from the Moore & McCormack Steamship Co.:

Mr. MORT BOROW,

MOORE & MCCORMACK Co., INC.,
New York City, December 1, 1937.

Secretary American Radio Telegraphists Association,
New York, N. Y.

The difficulties

DEAR SIR: Thanks for your valued letter of November 26. delaying our negotiation of various labor agreements, of which yours is only one, has nothing to do with the question of such agreements which in our opinion is largely determined by the law. The matter under investigation has to do with policies quite independent of the labor question.

As you may know the American Scantic Line has been for a number of years a Government subsidized line. Also, as you may have observed from the Maritime Commission's report dated November 10, 1937, the future of this line is in considerable doubt. The matter is receiving our full attention, as well as a great deal of attention from the authorities in Washington. We hope to have these matters of policy determined in the near future when it will be possible to come to some conclusions as to our labor situation.

Yours faithfully,

MOORE & MCCORMACK, INC.,
ROBERT L. LEE,

Vice President.

. The negotiations now being carried on with several steamship companies by the National Maritime Union are based on a standard contract which has already been signed by 11 lines. Attempts to

delay these negotiations serve further to bear out our prediction. It is becoming increasingly clear that certain shipping interests, failing to coerce us by the exercise of their economic strength, are resorting to legislation.

Recently, R. J. Baker, president of the American Steamship Owners' Association, stated publicly that he was preparing to invite another one of our organizations, the National Maritime Union, to confer with a committee from the association on a "standard form of labor agreement" for all the lines and the unions. The National Maritime Union never received that invitation. Later the National Maritime Union district committee wrote to Mr. Baker, offering to accept the invitation in advance. The letter was never answered.

The union pointed out at that time that there was already a standard form of contract in existence, that it had been signed by 11 companies, that it was the basis of negotiations then going on between the N. M. U. and 8 other companies, and that the union would be glad to submit a copy of it to Mr. Baker.

Compulsory arbitration: One of the provisions in the proposed legislation is to create machinery similar to the Railway Mediation Board for the shipping industry. Such an extension would do two things. It would provide the machinery for mediation and would limit the union's right to strike in its own defense. Since mediation machinery has already been set up in the contracts being signed by most of our unions, it is clear that the only provision that the employers are interested in is the one limiting the union's right to strike.

You all know what this means. Labor knows what this means and the people of the United States know what this means. It is the first step in a general drive for coercive legislation against labor in this country. In our opinion, such coercion would not represent the will of the people, and will, in fact, be resisted by them

If the shipowners and the congressional sponsors of the legislation are genuinely interested in the mediation of disputes arising out of contracts, why do they not cooperate with the unions in setting up "port committees" for that purpose? In our opinion, they are not genuinely interested in mediation. They are interested in limiting, by legislation if necessary, the union's right to act in its own defense. Their anxiety to take over the 6-month strike ban of the Railway Mediation Board, in our opinion, proves that. The union, during such a period, is forced to endure the conditions which are forcing the strike helpless to correct them. The companies, on the other hand have a 6 months' period in which to prepare for a strike--a period which practical people can hardly expect them to use for anything else. In the contracts which the National Maritime Union has recently signed with 11 companies and in the contracts now being negotiated there is a clause providing for arbitration of disputes as follows [reading]:

Upon written notice by either the company or the union that any dispute cannot be adjusted by their respective representatives, such dispute shall be referred for final adjustment to a port committee composed of seven persons, three of whom shall be appointed by the company and three by the union, within 24 hours after receipt of such notice. The six members so appointed shall meet within 24 hours after their appointment, at a time and place suitable to the company and the union, and at that meeting shall select the seventh member of the committee. If they cannot agree on the seventh member, such member shall be designated by the American Arbitration Association of 8 West Fortieth Street, New York City,

The port committee shall render a decision within 72 hours after the appointment of the seventh member, Sundays and holidays included, and the committee's decision or that of any four of the members of the committee shall be final and binding on the company and the union. The company and the union shall bear the expenses of their respective appointees to the port committee, but shall share equally the expenses of the seventh member of the committee.

We hold that the machinery being set up in these contracts is sufficient for the just settlement of any dispute that may arise. We feel that if the shipowners are acting in good faith, they will be willing to accept such a clause. If they are not, we do not think it the duty of this committee or of the Congress of the United States to give them aid and comfort. We don't believe that such a course would reflect the sentiments of the majority of the American peoplewho, as has been shown time and time again, are opposed to compulsory arbitration.

That the seamen are in favor of such machinery is evident, both from the wires we have received from ships' crews and from the overwhelming victories the National Maritime Union is winning on the steamship lines. The vote for the N. M. U. in the 18 elections held so far is 6,741 as against 1,053 for the disappearing International Seamen's Union. What better evidence can there be that the seamen want their own union and want to deal with the steamship owners through their chosen representatives?

It should be noted, we think, that the pressure for coercive legislation is not coming from those steamship companies who have shown a willingness to deal with the seamen on an organized basis. It is coming from those shipping interests who have resisted us at every turn, who have used every means at their command of stiflying our desire for organization and for harmonious relations.

The seamen want peace. They want decent wages and working conditions. Their only tool for achieving these things is organization. If you take that away, you will be taking away the one thing that is, at the moment, as important to the seamen as their bread and butter. In our opinion, they will never consent to it. They will resist it by every democratic means at their disposal. We believe that other trade unions will resist it also in fact, the whole American labor movement. The workers know what these bills will mean to them. It will mean the beginning of the end of their organizational rights.

On the question of training ships: We are not against the establishment of training ships. In fact, we are in favor of them-under certain conditions.

It is perhaps not wholly untrue that there are some boys and young men employed on ships who have not had the training which we feel they should have. If it is true, we believe the reason is not far to seek. During the marine strikes of 1936-37, the shipowners themselves, in collaboration with certain discredited officials of the then International Seamen's Union, scoured the inland towns and farms for young men and boys with whom to man their ships. These people were given all sorts of seamen's and lifeboat certificates and placed aboard large passenger ships without warning to the traveling public. In the time that has elapsed since then these men have received some training from union members sailing the ships and, in most instances, are becoming competent seamen.

That a period of training for boys interested in the sea as a trade and a profession would benefit the merchant marine, we do not doubt. The unions, as the entities best fitted to give this training, are quite