Page images
PDF
EPUB

Exhibits, letters, telegrams, etc., submitted for the record by—
American Labor Party, telegram to chairman_

Bonner, Hon. Herbert C., extract from publication, The Navy as a
Peacetime Career-

Page

255

389

Bradley Hon. Willis W.:

Data-unemployment and wages of seamen_

392, 404

Text of H. R. 476__

19

Bureau of the Budget, letter to Admiral W. W. Smith, United States
Maritime Commission

373

[blocks in formation]

Secretary of Commerce, letter to chairman_
Secretary of the Navy, letter to chairman_

333

374

Smith, Admiral W. W., report of United States Maritime Commis-

sion__

343

Thornsjo, Mr. Douglas, Pacific Tankers, Inc., letter to Senator Joseph
Ball_

185

United States Marine Hospital Annex, letter to chairman_
War Department, letter to chairman_

256

16

World War Veterans of the United States Merchant Marine, letter to
chairman_

135

SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Willis W. Bradley, presiding.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Gentlemen, we are assembled, Subcommittee No. 1, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, for the purpose of considering H. R. 476, a bill introduced by Mr. Peterson to provide aid for the readjustment in civilian life of those persons who rendered wartime service in the United States merchant marine during World War II, and to provide aid to the families of deceased war-service merchant seamen.

As you know, very extensive hearings were held on this bill last year. They ran over a long period of time. They are now available in two volumes. I hope the members of the committee have already read these volumes. There is a good deal in them. It would save a lot of testimony this year.

However, as this committee is composed of a large number of new members, as well as some of the old members, it will be necessary to take testimony. I do not know when it will be completed. May I say, frankly, that with the present schedule or program of the House, and the fact that this committee room is now scheduled for other committees both tomorrow and the next day, that we will not be able to sit this afternoon or tomorrow during the session-I am sure of that— or Thursday. Therefore, this may be drawn out for quite some time. In the meantime we shall proceed.

The first witness, gentlemen, is the Honorable George P. Miller, one of our colleagues from California.

Mr. Miller, will you please give your statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE B. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of appearing before this committee last year in support of this bill. I want to come here and reiterate my position so far as that is concerned. I believe that in the waging of modern warfare, those things we looked upon as being exclusively in the field of armed services have materially changed, and that whether a man was on a naval vessel in the uniform of the United States Navy or whether he was on a merchant ship in the uniform of a merchant seaman under the Maritime Commission, or otherwise, the

1

same torpedoes brought about the same hardship and were responsible for the same loss of life.

I have seen merchant ships in my own district, in the docks at the shipyards in Richmond, carrying on their funnels or on their deck houses little pictures indicating the planes that they had shot down at Leyte Gulf or at other places in the Pacific where they had received wounds that brought them back for drydocking. Certainly, the personnel on those ships were subjected to the same hardships and the same hazards as the armed crew on the ships. We find ourselves in a position, then, of saying to the widow of one person, or the man himself who might have been a member of the armed crew of that vessel, "You are entitled to certain benefits under the GI bill of rights"; and we may say to the other man, "Because you did not go through the formality of entering the armed services or for physical reasons you might have been rejected from the Navy and served in the merchant marine, your widow, or you, are not entitled to these rights."

So to me the distinction between those whom we recognize in the GI bill of rights and those subject to the same hazards disappear. I believe that this country has the same moral responsibility to its merchant seamen who served in battle areas as it does toward any other people in the service.

That is about all I have to say, sir. I favor this bill in principle. I appeared before this committee last year, and I am happy to be here again.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Have you gentlemen any questions you would like to ask Mr. Miller?

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Miller a question.

Do you feel they were exactly the same, that the merchant marine boys could on reaching an American port determine their own furlough?

Mr. MILLER. That is superficial. While they could determine their own furlough they still had to go back to sea again and they still went back to sea again. If they were within the draft age, if they took advantage of that furlough any longer, perhaps, than the man in the Navy who came into port, the privileges granted them were withdrawn and they went into the armed services. Where a few of them may have hid out behind that, just as a few people in the armed services hid out behind other things, I am not going to ask you to deprive the great group of them who went in with the same spirit and performed their duties with the same unselfish spirit of serving their country because there were a few renegades in the group. That same percentage of renegades appeared in the armed services or any other place.

Mr. POTTS. A lot were actually over draft age, weren't they?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. A lot of them served voluntarily. You remember we sent out call after call on the radio asking, for instance, ex-merchant marine officers to come into the service. There were thousands of those people who never could have been touched or never forced into the service who voluntarily stepped out of civilian life to go back in and man the merchant ships.

Mr. POTTS. I recollect one individual who left a very lucrative employment in the camera business, was tickled to death to get back into service. He was beyond the draft age. The sole reason he gave mẹ— he had not been on the sea since the last war-was that he was going

to make such a great amount of money by doing it. I saw him many times after he came back from trips. He was very happy in the employment which he chose.

Mr. MILLER. I don't think there are many men in this country who walk into the hazards which attaches to them in carrying the materials into the battle areas who did it with the monetary motive behind it.. Men just don't accept money for doing that. There may be a few, again, who do that. But these ships which were out there with the fleet and were subjected to the Kamikazes and the same type of strafing the battleships were which did not have all of that protection, men just were not motivated by money alone.

Again, there may have been a few of them. There may have been a few high-ranking officers in our Navy who would like to continue in those upper ranks because of the emoluments that come with it. I will not charge the Navy with being unpatriotic because of that.

Mr. MALONEY. It is a fact, is it not, that these men made considerably more money than the men who were in the Navy?

Mr. MILLER. I presume that is right.

Mr. MALONEY. Do you have any basis of comparison as to that? Mr. MILLER. No, I never have studied the thing quite that closely. I know they made some money. I know other people made money during the war, too.

Mr. BROPHY. Isn't it a fact they made about 5 to 1?

Mr. MILLER. Well, I suppose if you want to take the lower rating in the Navy that is about correct.

- Mr. BROPHY. No, I means in comparable positions.

Mr. MILLER. No, I don't think it is quite that high.

Mr. BROPHY. Two able-bodied seamen, one in the Navy and one in the merchant marine service, as examples.

it.

Mr. MILLER. I don't know. I never have gone into that phase of

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That will be brought out in tabular form.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, I think it will be brought out by competent people. I don't profess to know any more about it than you, my colleagues, in that respect. I am not an expert witness on the subject.

Mr. MALONEY. You would not consider that extra compensation they got as any reason why this bill should not be passed?

Mr. MILLER. I consider the hazards that the men went through rather than the compensation. I think the longest time spent at sea on one of those things was spent by men in the merchant marine service [referring to raft].

I pointed to the picture of the merchant marine men on a life raft in the ocean.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Any further questions?

I hope you gentlemen will bring out all the phases. You must remember if this does get to the floor of the House we will have to defend it and will have to have everything brought out as we go along. Mr. BONNER. I am not a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It makes no difference.

Mr. BONNER. What would be your views to inducting merchant marine into the national defense in case of a future emergency?

Mr. MILLER. I believe in the case of a future emergency-again, I am not on the Armed Services Committee or this committee—but I

think it is good common sense that in the event of a future emergency that the merchant marine most likely would find itself right in the naval service more or less, because it is so important to the naval service. It is just an integral part of our national defense, just as much as the Navy or the Army. Many years ago we did not accept doctors, for instance, in either of the services. As late as the SpanishAmerican War the Medical Corps were contract personnel. They were not even commissioned officers. A doctor was under contract. We have gotten away from that. We bring them in.

As I see it, in all our future wars you will mobilize everything. including scientists ad everybody else, and most likely bring them under the umbrella and level out everything. That is why I feel strongly about this. As I said in the beginning, men who were subjected to the same hazards should receive the same treatment.

Mr. BONNER. This question came up when the war first became apparent; did you know that?

Mr. MILLER. I wasn't here and have not followed it closely since that time.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Thank you, Mr. Miller. We appreciate your courtesy in appearing before us.

Mr. MILLER. I want to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing before them.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Thank you.

Hon. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, another one of our colleagues.

STATEMENT OF HON. HALE BOGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of coming here before the subcommittee to testify for just a few minutes in favor of the enactment of this legislation. I have the privilege of represent ing the city of New Orleans in the Congress of the United States. During the war we had almost as large a portion of young men entering the merchant marine as we did, proportionately speaking, the other branches. Those men served with courage. In the opening days of the war, right at the mouth of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, before we had adequate naval and air protection against submarines, ships were sunk there daily.

As a matter of fact, I asked the Navy Department several days ago to give me a recapitulation of the ships sunk in that area and I was really amazed to realize that there were so many. I am certain those figures are all before the commitee. I bring them out only to emphasize the point which has been made here by my colleague, Mr. Miller, from California, that it cannot be logically argued that ther was any difference in the hazards faced by the men who served in the merchant marine as compared to those of the men who served in other services.

As a matter of fact, it was my impression, and I think it can be verified, that the period of training was so brief for these men entering the merchant marine, and in some cases no time at all, that certainly in the opening years of the war they were subjected to hazards and

« PreviousContinue »