without being able to set a date-which I can get for you-it would be my recollection that the greater majority of them were returned fairly promptly after the close of the war in the Far East; whereas there may have been others where there were complications which dragged on a little later.

I would not be able to set a date, but I can get that information for you.

Mr. PICKETT. Do you think it would be fair to say that, generally speaking, they had all been turned back by late in 1948?

Mr. MORSE. Oh, yes; I do not think there is any question about that. Mr. PICKETT. That is fair enough. We do not need to get the specific date, month, and hour. I understand, then, that there has been no taking of any vessel under this statute since the incidence of hostilities in Korea?

Captain CHRISTENSEN. That is correct.

Mr. PICKETT. Do you at this time, in view of known circumstances, contemplate exercising this authority at any place?

Captain CHRISTENSEN. To my knowledge there is no known requirement at this time. I mean, conditions do not require it at this time. However, in our planning, Mr. Congressman, if this emergency, socalled emergency-it has varying degrees of requirements

Mr. FORRESTER. Do you want that to go into the record or not? Captain CHRISTENSEN. I do not intend to give any specific value, so I think it can very well go in. But if the emergency requirements become such, and there would be one of these foreign merchantmen lying idle within our territorial jurisdiction, we might want to exercise it and exercise it rather rapidly.

Mr. PICKETT. In effect, then, what you want is stand-by authority. Captain CHRISTENSEN. That is correct, sir. That is our main interest in this, that we know we have a sense of direction that we can take.

Mr. PICKETT. Might this phase of our document be considered for the purpose of enacting permanent legislation to that end?

Captain CHRISTENSEN. I did not quite understand your question, sir. Mr. PICKETT. You want this for the duration of the present or anticipated emergency as it might hereafter be declared?

Captain CHRISTENSEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Then in view of the conditions that will confront us at any time in the future, whether during the present emergency or some subsequent emergency that would require or at least make it desirable to exercise this similar authority, would it not be advisable to study this subject with a view of making it permanent legislation, Captain?

Captain CHRISTENSEN. Yes. From the viewpoint of the Department of the Navy, that is exactly what we see in this as it now exists. We would like to do that.

Mr. PICKETT. Have you studied the matter to the extent that you are prepared to submit a proposal to Congress to make this permanent legislation, or is it just something you are talking in the Department?

Captain CHRISTENSEN. That was just my personal opinion before this committee, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. I would say this to you, Captain: It is my view that such of these powers that are contained in this proposed legislation,

which we do recommend the extension of, ought to have a limitation on them not to exceed 2 years.

In view of that circumstance and assuming that my view is agreed to by the Congress, I think it would be advisable for the Maritime Commission as well as the Navy Department to give active study to a permanent legislative proposal that you would want to place on the books so that it would become effective upon the accomplishment of the proper requisites. I hope I make myself clear on that.

I can see in this proposal here and in your statement one at least very valuable use that this authority could be made, which would be to deprive some potential or actual enemy of the use of a valuable piece of property, that we could, of course, convert to our own use. At least I am very sympathetic with that view.

I do think that we should give consideration to the enactment of matters of this kind on a permanent basis if we can work them out. I just do not want to continue the authorities conferred in anything we report out and pass in this Congress for an indefinite period, based upon a declared emergency by the current or some future Executive, when we have gone as far as we have to interpret our inherent powers in the past; and I just think we had better write it in the books. Mr. FORRESTER. Captain, the first observation I want to make, I want to congratulate you upon your concise statement. Certainly you have set out some things in this paper which require the attention of Congress. On the other hand, I do want to direct your attention again to a matter that was raised by Congressman Pickett, which is this, that you consider and be very frank to consider the wisdom of putting a time limit upon emergency legislation.

The people are becoming acutely conscious of the fact that an emergency can be declared any time, that an emergency can continue almost indefinitely, where it could directly become a way of life in this country.

So far as inherent powers are concerned, if there are any such things as inherent powers, the citizens of this country never dreamed of that; they are not to be found in any textbook of law that I ever read; and I do not think that we could fail to appreciate the grave danger that we are facing. I am not asking you gentlemen to agree with me, but I do believe you gentlemen are following to some extent my line of reasoning.

I understand what you say here. I see your reasoning. But at the same time we would appreciate very much if we could figure on some time limit on these powers, so when that limit has expired the Congress can again address itself to the granting or the withholding of these powers.

I would like to throw that out to Mr. Burrus, too, and to all of the rest of the various departments that have come before us, because I do not mind saying to you now that so far as I am concerned, I am not going to be a party to granting a perpetuity, or anything that smacks of that. But in the same breath I want to say to you that I want to do anything and everything that is necessary for the defense of my country.

Mr. Brickfield, do you have any questions?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Yes, I have one question. Is there any legislation now in effect that allows the President or one of the executive depart

ments to take over domestic vessels for these same purposes, either for charter or for requisition or by purchase?

Captain CHRISTENSEN. Yes, there is, Mr. Brickfield. I feel, however, that what I have in mind, I am thinking of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936; and I feel Mr. Huntington Morse would be more qualified to discuss that law.

Mr. MORSE. There is provision in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, which is section 902, which provides for the acquisition, requisition for use, or purchase of merchant vessels for shipping in this country from citizens only.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. I mean in time of war, or at any time.

Mr. MORSE. No; that section only becomes operative in time of emergency declared by the President.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. This particular statute would have nothing to do with that Merchant Marine Act that you relate to for taking or seizing domestic vessels in time of national emergency?

Mr. MORSE. It is supplementary to that, in addition to that. This provides for taking foreign vessels. To that extent 902 proved itself inadequate in World War II.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Nothing under this particular statute could be implied to continue the President's or any executive department's authority to take over domestic vessels during the national emergency?

Mr. MORSE. Not as I understand it.

Mr. BBICKFIELD. Nothing under this statute would give the President that power or implied power?

Mr. MORSE. No.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. My next question is: During time of peace, there is, according to this statement here on page 22, permanent legislation where the Maritime Commission can take over both domestic and foreign vessels provided they follow certain established procedures like advertising and things like that. Is that not so?

Mr. MORSE. I was not too clear in your question.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. I am reading on the fourth line on page 22, section 1 (a) (30). It says:

The act also provides authority for the charter by the Maritime Commission of domestic and foreign vessels essential for the national defense without regard to the provisions of Revised Statutes 3709 (41 U. S. C. 5) relating to advertisement for proposals for purchases and contracts.

Mr. MORSE. Yes, that is a provision which provides for the charter of these vessels by negotiation; but there again that is supplemental to section 902 which I just cited.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. By chartering, do you mean chartering the whole vessel or chartering it in part, or both?

Mr. MORSE. There are various forms of charter, but the two generally recognized forms are what is known as bare-boat charter, which is taking the vessel itself-in other words, without the crew, and then operating the vessel. And the other is so-called time charter, which is like renting your house with the servants and everything in it. with the crew and everything on it.

In other words, those are the two generally recognized forms, and this provision would cover both. In other words, they could take the boat on a bare-boat basis, as they call it; or a time-charter basis, which is the use of the v with the crew and everything on it.

Mr. PICKETT. Do I understand that, generally speaking, your Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, provides the requisite authority to take over domestically owned vessels in time of emergency; and that being the case, then this provision here really adds nothing to that law insofar as domestically owned vessels is concerned? Is that right?

Mr. MORSE. That is right, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Then what we are really dealing with-and just putting it in the record here so we will understand it-is the procedure by which we may take over foreign-owned vessels during the time of the emergency.

Captain CHRISTENSEN. That is the Department of the Navy's prime interest in this.

Mr. PICKETT. I just wanted to be sure that we understood each other on it. This one thing, and it is a general statement. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is talk about a pending strike in the oil industry. There is ample time today for the Executive or the proper agencies in the executive department to make plans to handle. that situation either under the Labor Relations Act of 1947, as amended; or to prepare the necessary legislation that the Executive thinks it can operate under, and that this country can live under, and submit it to the Congress in order to take care of potential matters as threatened in the oil industry or any other vital industry in this country.

If you gentlemen, or any of you, have any responsibility in the preparation or handling of matters of that kind, I hope you will get somebody in your department to give a little thought to it now; because I do not believe this Congress as a body is going to permit a continuation of the seizures under the assumed implied inherent powers of the Constitution, both as to the steel industry or anything else that it might want to take over.

I do not want to get into that subject because I do not think it would take any preparation on my part to make a speech on it. It might not be a very profound and sound speech, but it certainly would be expressive of my views. But just imagine, if you can, what you think I would say. Please bear that in mind, Mr. Burrus and you gentlemen, if you have some responsibility in that regard.

Mr. FORRESTER. In other words, that certainly does reflect the opin1on of Congressmen Pickett and Forrester. So if you know someone who is interested in it, you would do well to throw it out to them.

Mr. BURRUS. I would like to ask one question, if I may, of the witness. Does this act not add anything to section 902 with respect to domestic vessels? I am referring to the sentence that Mr. Brickfield referred to. He says:

The act also provides authority for the charter by the Maritime Commission of domestic and foreign vessels essential for the national defense without regard to the provisions of Revised Statutes 3709 (41 U. S. C. 5) relating to advertisement for proposals for purchases and contracts.

Mr. MORSE. Yes; it does. As I thought I pointed out, it is supplemental to 902, and it provides greater leeway in the acquisition of domestic vessels by charter than 902 does.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. This extends certain of the provisions relating to domestic vessels.

Mr. BURRUS. That is right. Maybe I am the only one who did not get that point.

to.

Mr. MORSE. That is what I meant to say when I said supplemental

Mr. BURRUS. I just wanted to be sure it was clear.

Mr. FORRESTER. Mr Burrus, could we get through with 1 (a) (3) quickly.

Mr. BURRUS. I do think that will be a brief section. It is on page 12, section 1 (a) (3). It provides the authority to inspect plants and audit books of war contractors. I believe Mr. Thomas is the witness.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT B. THOMAS, TECHNICAL ADVISER TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

Item 1 (a) (3), title 50

Section 643. Plant, books, and records of war contractors; definition of defense contract; agency designated to administer provisions.

The provisions of section 10 (1) of an Act approved July 2, 1926 (44 Stat. 787; section 310 (1) of Title 10) (giving the Government the right to inspect the plant and audit the books of certain Contractors), shall apply to the plant, books, and records of any contractor with whom a defense contract has been placed at any time after the declaration of emergency on September 8, 1939, and before the termination of the present war: Provided, That, for the purpose of this title [sections 643-643c of this Appendix], the term "defense contract" shall mean any contract, subcontract, or order placed in furtherance of the defense or war effort: And provided further, That the inspection and audit authorized herein, and the determination whether a given contract is a "defense contract" as defined above, shall be made by a governmental agency or officer designated by the President, or by the Chairman of the War Production Board. Mar. 27, 1942, 3 p. m. E. W. T., c. 199, Title XIII, section 1301, 56 Stat. 185.

Section 643a. Oaths and affirmations; attendance and testimony of witnesses; production of records and other evidence; unlawful disclosure of information obtained.

For the purpose of obtaining any information or making any inspection or audit pursuant to section 1301 [section 643 of this Appendix], any agency acting hereunder, or the Chairman of the War Production Board, as the case may be, may administer oaths and affirmations and may require by subpena or otherwise the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any books or records or any other documentary or physical evidence which may be deemed relevant to the inquiry. Such attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such books, records, or other documentary or physical evidence may be required at any designated place from any State, Territory, or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, That the production of a person's books, records, or other documentary evidence shall not be required at any place other than the place where such person resides or transacts business, if, prior to the return date specified in the subpena issued with respect thereto, such person furnishes such agency or the Chairman of the War Production Board, as the case may be, with a true copy of such books, records, or other documentary evidence (certified by such person under oath to be a true and correct copy) or enters into a stipulation with such agency or the Chairman of the War Production Board, as the case may be, as to the information contained in such books, records, or other documentary evidence. Witnesses shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing any books, records, or other documentary evidence or certified copies thereof or physical evidence in obedience to any such subpena, or in any action or proceeding which may be instituted under this section, on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture; but no individual shall be subject to prosecution and punishment or to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled to testify or pro