willing to cooperate with the Government of the United States in the establishment of schools.

Therefore, we suggest, first, that such training be conducted under the supervision of a board representative of the Maritime Commission and the unions involved.

Second, that among the candidates for such training, preference be given to those seamen who, at the present time, do not meet the standards demanded by the present law.

Third, that training ships be established on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts and in the Great Lakes.

Fourth, that these ships be provided with all the facilities necessary for the practical training of efficient seamen as well as for the higher theoretical training necessary for the licensed crafts.

Fifth, that students taken from the ranks of working seamen be paid the prevailing wages for their craft for the period of training. Sixth, that new students, those without any experience whatsoever, be paid the wages now paid to cadets or to similar grade for their department.

Seventh, that after 6 months' training, students be eligible for employment in the merchant marine in the beginning grade for the department in which they are training.

Eighth, that all instructors be taken from the ranks of bona fide maritime unions and that they shall be paid the prevailing wage for the highest grade of work for which they are qualified aboard ship.

Such a program would, in our opinion, meet all the requirements for efficient, effective training ships.

We cannot stress too strongly our opposition to the setting up of training ships under the supervision of the Coast Guard or any other branch of the armed forces of our country. That opposition is based on the following reasons:

First, the duties of the Coast Guard are pretty well fixed at the present time, and we feel that an extension of those duties to include the training of merchant seamen would violate the intention of Congress in establishing and maintaining that branch of the service.

Second, few, if any, Coast Guard men have served in merchant marine. We feel that they are not as qualified as our people for instructing students.

Third, the antilabor philosophy of certain branches of the armed services is well known. American merchant seamen would look with the utmost suspicion on the type of instruction that prospective seamen would be bound to get in a school staffed by the military.

With respect to the shipyard workers affiliated with the marine unions, they wish to protest against any legislation which would permit shipowners to accept Government subsidies to build ships in foreign yards. We do not believe that such legislation would meet. with the approval of the American people-the people who put up the money for subsidies. In this time of business recession such legislation would be thoroughly inconsistent with the principles on which the present administration presented its case to the voting public in the 1936 elections. In those elections the American people endorsed the administration's policies by overwhelming majorities. These bills, in our opinion, violate the spirit of those policies. The people of the United States cannot and will not, we believe, endorse any such

legislation which permits Government subsidizing of foreign shipyards which is what these bills provide.

More than 100,000 workers have been laid off in the steel industry in the past 2 months. Workers in contributing industries are being laid off in additional thousands. American workmen need this construction work. American business needs it. Even if the money going into this construction were from private funds, from private capital, it would be unpatriotic to send it to foreign yards. But with the money coming from the Public Treasury, it is unthinkable that Congress can approve such legislation.

As to subsidized salaries: These measures also provide that the Maritime Commission can, in its discretion, lift the restrictions on shipping officials' salaries in subsidized lines. This, too, is unthinkable, in our opinion. At the present time, the limit for these salaries is $25,000. That is high enough. If a company official in a "sick industry" cannot feed and clothe himself on $25,000 a year, then we feel that he belongs in some other industry. We are told that the shipping companies are interested in building up an American merchant marine. If that is so, if they are sincerely interested in such an enterprise, it is our opinion that the services of their officials can be purchased for $25,000 a year-a salary greatly in excess of those paid to Members of the Congress of the United States. The highest paid officer in the American Navy struggles along on less.

It is significant, we believe, that the companies which are most vociferous in demanding the lifting of this restriction are among those who are most adamant in refusing living wages to the seamen in their employ. The very men who cannot keep body and soul together on $25,000 a year consider $70 a month adequate for seamen. The men who must have luxurious homes in various parts of the country insist that the crew's quarters on their ships, described by the Maritime Commission as outrageous, are perfectly in keeping with the American tradition. We say that isn't so. Crews' quarters at present, whether in keeping with the American tradition or not, are inadequate for the people manning American ships, and we insist that they be improved before the restrictions on $25,000 salaries be lifted. The American people, least of all the seamen, will never consent to it, otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN. Since Mr. Curran has touched on the training situation, I should like to have the record include what the report of the United States Maritime Commission, entitled "Economic Survey. of the American Merchant Marine," has to say under the heading. of "Training" beginning at page 50, of that report.

(The portion of Economic Survey of American Merchant Marine beginning with Training, on p. 50, and continuing through the conclusion of that subject on p. 52, is to be made a part of the record at this point.)

TRAINING

The Commission, in its study of the labor problem, has also gone carefully into the question of sea training. The United States is the only major power which does not have extensive facilities for training young men for a career in the merchant marine. Four of the States maintain schools for the training of officers, but there is no provision at present for the training of unlicensed personnel.

The declaration of policy of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 states that the United States "shall have a merchant marine * * * manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel." Similar declarations appear in the Shipping Act, 1916, and the Merchant Marine Acts of 1920 and 1928. A Sea Training

Bureau was established in 1917 under the 1916 act. Congress ratified the creation of the service, in effect by providing specific appropriations in 1918 and in 1919. It appears, therefore, that there is legal authority for the creation of a system of sea training and the Commission is convinced that the United States Government should undertake this function.

A plan accordingly is being considered for the training of 500 young men under supervision of the United States Coast Guard.

It has been proposed that the Commission set up a shore base on Hoffman and Swinburne Islands in New York Harbor. These Islands are under the control of the Treasury Department, which has agreed not to dispose of them until the Commission determines whether or not it desires to make use of them. The islands were formerly used by the Quarantine Service, but have not been in use for some years. Hoffman Island has 15 buildings on it which are in exceptionally good condition. The buildings are easily adaptable for living and training purposes. Swineburne Island is located a short distance from Hoffman Island and would be a helpful adjunct to the main training station. The Commandant of the Coast Guard and his aides have inspected this property, consider it suitable for the purpose, and are willing to undertake the work.

Students for the courses of training would be recruited from all sections of the country. They would be American citizens between the ages of 18 and 23, unless the age limitations were subsequently changed, and would be enlisted for a period of 1 year. In cases where a recruit showed aptitude for further specialized training, and enlistment for an additional year's training could be permitted.

The training would cover approximately 3 months at the shore training station on Hoffman Island; 6 months on a training merchant vessel; and 3 months on a cruising cutter of the Coast Guard. Estimates submitted by the Coast Guard indicate that the cost of training 500 recruits would be $1,443 per man, or a total of $721,418 for the year. This would cover all costs except the expense of rehabilitating Hoffman Island, estimated at $100,000; the reconditioning of a Coast Guard patrol boat, estimated at $40,000; original outfits, estimated at $40,000; and reconditioning of one of the vessels owned by the Commission, to accommodate recruits and crew, estimated to cost $465,000. The total outlay by the Commission for the first year would therefore amount to $1,356,419.

The Commission has also gone into the subject of training in sail, as is done by many foreign nations. It is believed that, for the present at least, such training should be confined to a sailing vessel to be attached to a shore base. James A. Farrell, owner of the full-rigged ship Tusitala, has offered to give this vessel to the Commission for use as a training ship. It is recommended that Mr. Farrell's offer be accepted.

It has been suggested that organized labor might oppose the inauguration of such a program. The Commission does not believe that labor would oppose any reasonable plan for raising the standards of its craft. Under this program the number of men to be introduced into the merchant service, with allowance for failures and withdrawals, probably would not exceed 400 a year. This small number, it is believed, is but a fraction of the normal replacement requirements of our seagoing vessels. The graduates of sea-training systems abroad-notably in England, where the so-called closed shop prevails have no difficulty in securing places aboard ship. The unions accept these young men as members and welcome their wholesome influence in the ranks of seagoing workers.

The Commission also has been giving consideration to the advisability of establishing a national merchant marine academy for the training of officers. Schoolships maintained by the States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and California now offer such training. There are many who believe that the training of officers is properly a Federal and not a State function. This work, it is maintained, could be done to much better advantage, and probably at less cost, by a national academy that would partake of the nature of the Army's West Point, the Navy's Annapolis, and the Coast Guard's New London. Possibly the existing system of State schools could be strengthened by Federal grants to those States now maintaining such a service. The Commission is making a study of the matter preliminary to a report to the Congress.

The Commission has given consideration to a more comprehensive program affecting the existing personnel. It has considered the establishment of a maritime service, which members of the existing personnel of the American merchant marine could join after having successfully completed a course of training. Under the proposed plan, the enrollment would involve no element of compulsion; men would be encouraged to join by the payment of at least 1 months' pay per year to those enrolled in the service, as well as payment during the period of training.

The Coast Guard has consented to assume the task of conducting any such training course which might be established. The whole objective of such a program would be to raise the caliber of our marine personnel. It is believed that with an improvement in working conditions, and assuming that labor relations will be established on a harmonious basis, there is every reason to expect that a high type of personnel drawn from all sections of the country can be attracted to our merchant marine.

The Commission is of the opinion that such a program should not be undertaken, however, until there has been further opportunity for study.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Senator VANDENBERG. I am very much interested in the voluntary mediation contracts, which you spoke of, and agree with you that if they can be made voluntarily it is far more preferable. For my information, will you tell me how one of those contracts works in respect, let us say, to a dispute which arises on a ship at sea?

Mr. CURRAN. The instructions are very clear as to the matter of a dispute arising on a ship at sea. Any dispute arising at sea is to be held in abeyance pending arival in the home port, where the dispute can be adjudicated. At sea, the authority of the master is to be preserved in all respects.

Senator VANDENBERG. That is certainly adequate and satisfactory if it works. Does it work?

Mr. CURRAN. It has worked, and it is working now.

If I may quote from the labor statistics report of the past month or so, there have not been any strikes or any disputes of any nature in the merchant marine field.

Senator VANDENBERG. You are undoubtedly familiar with many of the stories we have heard in recent months and years about insubordination at sea. Is there any justification for those tales? I know that is a rather curious question to ask you, for I cannot identify the incidents I am talking about.

Mr. CURRAN. I think that is very curious, and I think it calls for an answer that I am not especially in a position to give. I do not believe I could satisfactorily cover the disputes that have occurred in the past years. I can say that in the past few months, since we have been able to go through with our elections before the National Labor Relations Board and enter into negotiations for agreements, we have experienced less and less difficulty in adjudicating labor disputes. In fact, we have had no difficulty whatsoever in the past few months. If we are allowed to continue along those lines, there will not be any disputes. The National Labor Relations Board is very ably handling all the disputes that occur.

Senator VANDENBERG. The jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board is confined, is it not, to the matter of elections? It cannot mediate subsequently, can it?

Mr. CURRAN. Where unfair labor practices are apparent, where we have complaint of discrimination, those complaints have been filed with the Board. The Board takes action on those complaints and holds hearings on them, and we abide by the results of those decisions of the Board.

Senator VANDENBERG. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is impossible for Mr. Curran or for me to ask any specific questions regarding this problem about which there is so much controversy, but I think it would be fine if Mr. Curran could return again after, perhaps, some of this other information has been developed.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is satisfactory.

Mr. CURRAN. I should like to say, too, that we agree wholeheartedly with the statement made by the chairman of the National Labor Relations Board here. We feel that the Maritime Commission recommendations did not in any way intend that the powers of the National Labor Relations Act should be curtailed in the jurisdiction of labor disputes.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will refer to the bill S. 3078, at page 36, beginning at line 9, you will see the following:

SEC. 1004. Disputes between a maritime employer or group of maritime employers and any of its or their employees growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, shall be handled in compliance with the provisions of any agreement relating to the settlement of such disputes or in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the maritime employer designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in either manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to an appropriate adjustment board, as hereinafter provided, with a full statement of the facts and supporting data bearing upon the disputes.

Does not that contemplate that such voluntary agreements as have made shall be given consideration?

Mr. CURRAN. No; I am afraid that it does not. I am afraid that the continuity of the bill detracts from any possibility that it may have. This deals very clearly in disputes growing out of grievances and states that they shall be handled in the usual manner. The usual manner is that the chief operating officer of the maritime employer attempts to adjudicate the dispute with the employee. Failing in that, according to the rest of the bill, it will move on to the Mediation Board or to the National Adjustment Board, so I do not think it covers that at all. It is something that has been done over a period of years. Where a small dispute occurred, we attempted to adjudicate it first with the officers of the company or with the officers of the vessel.

The CHAIRMAN. It would seem to me as I read this-I did not write it-that it is very definite, in lines 13, 14, and 15, that these disputes shall be handled in compliance with the provisions of any agreement relating to the settlement of such disputes or in the usual manner.

Mr. CURRAN. The question arising there would be an interpretation of the usual manner. The employee always has the right to go to a superior officer and complain of conditions or of whatever may be wrong. Then, if the official just above cannot adjudicate it, they move on to another official in the company. Nine times out of ten the employee ends up on the blacklist if he continues. It has been the practice in the past, if they complained along these lines, to wind up in the little black book, so they find themselves without employment and without the possibility of getting it in the future.

The CHAIRMAN. Is not one purpose of the bill before us to avoid the existence of the little black book?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, as it now stands, the agreements being reached between the union and the shipowners very efficiently do away with the possibility of a blacklist, inasmuch as they provide that if any employee is not acceptable to the steamship operator, the steamship operator shall give written reasons why the man is being rejected. Usually those written objections will be along the lines of inefficiency, sobriety, and so on. Before, it was just a question of a man applying for a job and the employer, without any reason whatsoever, just saying, "There is no job for you.'