Mr. BONNER. Yes. This is interesting, what he is going to develop here. Before the international pool was formed by the War Shipping Administration and the Maritime Commission, all ships on the high seas were brought into the pool and operated by the War Shipping Administration.

Before that time, all merchant seamen were protected by the owner of the ship, should the ship be lost at a foreign destination, or if this were landed on some foreign shore. Then, their salaries and compensation would be continued until they were brought home. That was the case, then, with respect to charters-all the ships that were chartered and sent abroad by the Maritime Commission and War Shipping Administration prior to the formation of the pool, the merchant seaman was protected then by the ship owner with respect to his salary, should the ship be lost.

Mr. LEVINE. To my knowledge, no salary was paid after the ship was lost.

Mr. BONNER. Well, now, you have just said that—

Mr. LEVINE. He was protected

Mr. BONNER. His sailing rights. He was protected with sailing rights?

Mr. LEVINE. With wages, maintenance, and cure.

Mr. BONNER. Yes.

Mr. LEVINE. That applies not if the ship is lost; that applies if he istaken off the ship in Rio, for instance, and he is ill.

Mr. BONNER. Well, that applies to peacetime operations?

Mr. LEVINE. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. And his salary continued until he came home? Mr. LEVINE. No, not until he came home. What they get is the sal-ary to the end of the voyage.

Mr. BONNER. The end of the voyage or termination was back to the point of original sailing?

Mr. LEVINE. The way it works is this way: a seaman is taken off at Rio because he is ill. His ship then proceeds back after a week of loading in Rio and comes back in 2 weeks' sailing time. In other words, he has been ill in Rio for 3 weeks. He is entitled to his wages for those 3 weeks. But if he is sick for another 10 weeks down there, he is no longer entitled to wages. He is entitled only to wages to the end of the voyage on which he started out.

Mr. BONNER. That was just normal operations?

Mr. LEVINE. Right.

Mr. BONNER. But at the time we chartered those ships, under pri-vate charter, that still held, them?

Mr. LEVINE. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. Now, through no fault of his own, if the ship was lost, he got his pay until he was brought back to the United States?

Mr. LEVINE. Not if his ship was lost. He gets wages, maintenance,, and cure if he is sick, but there is no provision in maritime law for payment of wages after the ship is sunk.

Mr. BONNER. Well, he was then under private operation, though the ship was chartered by the private operator to the Maritime Com-mission to haul such stuff as they selected?

Mr. LEVINE. Under private operation the seaman is not entitled to any wages after the ship is lost.

Mr. BONNER. How would you then determine what he would have been entitled to? Because he was entitled to something if the vessel was lost, and he was landed on a foreign shore. Certainly he got something, when he was under private operation, though it was chartered to the Maritime Commission.

Mr. LEVINE. If the man was aboard the ship and the vessel was lost, it foundered or stranded or sunk, the man is not entitled to any

wages.

Mr. BONNER. I am speaking about the time just before they came into the pool. You do not mean to tell me that you folks stood by and let that situation exist? I know how diligently and keenly you always looked into these things.

Mr. LEVINE. We try to.

have

Mr. BONNER. You cannot sit here and tell me now that you did not look into that.

Mr. LEVINE. Well, as I say, I came in October 1943. I would like the privilege of checking back to see whether

Mr. BONNER. Do you see what I am driving at?

Mr. LEVINE. Yes.

Mr. BONNER. Just before they went into the pool

Mr. LEVINE. Well, I think the point would apply uniformly to the whole war. To my knowledge, they did not get anything after the ship was lost.

Mr. BONNER. Oh, we had these investigations of this charter business here day in and day out, ships that were lost under charter, where one trip paid for the whole value of the ship. Now, I cannot imagine that you would let a condition like that exist. You know, then, that had been cut off by the operation of the war, the War Shipping Administration, taking the ships into the pool. Then, what did you do? I want you to look into that and tell me.

Mr. LEVINE. I want to look into it. My impression is still that all through the war the man never got anything after the ship was lost, unless he was captured or injured.

Mr. BONNER. It interests me to know why you did not raise that question then.

Mr. LEVINE. You are perfectly right.

Mr. BONNER. It is very interesting to me to get your explanation of that.

Mr. LEVINE. You are quite right.

Mr. BONNER. Because I know as sympathetic as this committee was during those early stages, something would have been done if you had brought this question before this committee and I do not understand it today.

Mr. LEVINE. I will certainly check into it and let you know the answer in a day or two.

Mr. BONNER. All right.

Mr. LEVINE. If I may return to the point from which I broke off, I was saying that at that time you had certain men on what were nominally privately owned vessels covered by a private system of wages, maintenance, and cure, and the traditional maritime

Mr. BRADLEY of California. At what time?

Mr. LEVINE. Early in the war, 1941 and 1942. I think Public Law 17 was passed in 1943.

At any rate, you had then a mixed system. Certain vessels which were Government-owned outright were covered under United States Employees Compensation Act. Certain vessels which were privately owned and which were chartered under certain terms to the Government had the traditional private remedies. Seamen were isolatedMr. BONNER. That is just what I asked you a minute ago. The private traditional remedies that I spoke about a minute ago. Mr. LEVINE. Yes, that appiled.

Mr. BONNER. Those two ships, sailing in that class, and then all coming into the pool.

Mr. LEVINE. I thought you had an additional question of why we did -not pursue the question of protecting the man after the ship

Mr. BONNER. Yes. I would like you to answer that, too.

Mr. LEVINE. All right.

So we had two systems, and the question came up whether or not we should have a uniform system of United States Employees Compensation Act for all the men or whether we should have a uniform system of traditional maritime remedies for all the men. Public Law 17-I think it was of the Seventy-seventh Congress-I must check back on the exact date-provided that the traditional private remedies should apply on all ships, whether they were Government-owned or Government-chartered, exclusive of the Army transport ships. But insofar as the War Shipping Administration was concerned, all of the ships under its control and domination Public Law 17 excluded the men from the United States Employees Compensation Act and gave them the traditional private remedies.

Mr. BONNER. Then, those men on the Army transports came under the provisions of civil service?

Mr. LEVINE. That is right.

Mr. BONNER. They are not in question at all here?

Mr. LEVINE. They are not in the bill?

Mr. BONNER. They are not considered as any beneficiary under this act?

Mr. LEVINE. They are included; yes.

Mr. BONNER. Yes, but at that time they were under the civil service, and were entitled to all benefits under the Civil Service Act?

Mr. LEVINE. That is right, sir.

Mr. BONNER. Then, you want to bring them in under this, too? Mr. BRADLEY of California. Under this bill they are completely included.

Mr. BONNER. I understand that. I am just trying to bring it out in the hearing, that is all.

Mr. LEVINE. What this bill does is give them, in addition, education and hospitalization and would set off any rights they have toward compensation as a set-off provision toward the compensation part here.

We passed this law and then everybody was under the uniform system of private benefit rights. In addition, we had the war risk insurance. Now, the war risk insurance made payments of $5,000 cash or $7,500, at the rate of $150 a month for men injured because of a. war risk. Now, that, at first, was determined to be a rather narrow category, and subsequently, because of many cases which were noncompensable, the thing was broadened out to include certain marine perils which could be attributed to the war. For instance, if a ship

had been sunk by collision, in a case where probably the blackouts caused the collision, the war risk insurance was paid. War risk insurance applied only to those cases which were attributable to the war. The traditional marine remedies apply to the traditional marine injuries and traditional sicknesses aboard ship.

Somewhat later in the war we discovered that certain men injured early in the war and certain of the dependents of men lost early in the war who, incidentally, also were entitled to war risk insurance, if the death was the result of war risk causes, were running out of the money which they had secured from the Government. In other words, they had either gotton $5,000 war risk insurance or $7,500 at the rate of $150 a month, and after 4 or 5 years were being left without any compensation or any provision to take care of themselves.

Accordingly, a law was passed by the last Congress, Public Law 449. That law said that if and when the war risk insurance benefits are completed, then, the United States Maritime Commission shall continue the payment of benefits for permanent total and permanent partial disabilities, according to the schedules of the United States Employees' Compensation Act.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You stated there a $5,000 payment or $7,500 at the rate of $150 a month.

Mr. LEVINE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Was the choice of that optional? Mr. LEVINE. To my knowledge it was optional, but I wish you would ask that also of the Maritime Commission.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In figuring this later situation, in which payments might be continued after the exhaustion of the first payment, was there any rate set as to how rapidly this exhaustion might hape taken place? For example, one person might have spent the whole $5,000 in a year.

Mr. LEVINE. Oh, that was pro rated. I do not know the terms on which they did pro rate it. You would have to ask the insurance people of the Maritime Commission. But they were not given payments until their pro rated amount was

Mr. BRADLEY of California. We can allow you just another 5 minutes this morning. Proceed.

Mr. LEVINE. Very well.

Public Law 449, for some strange reason—and I must take part of the blame, because I worked on part of it in conjunction with the Maritime Commission-made no provision for taking up for the dependents of the deceased. In other words, we made provision for the cancelation of benefits for the permanently disabled without making any provision for the dependents of the deceased.

Another thing wrong with that is that we put in according to the schedules of the United States Compensation Act and the United States Employees Compensation Act does not have any schedules. It is not a concept of physical impairment, but of loss of earning power. The Maritime Commission has had some difficulty administering and I understand 14 or 15 cases are already receiving benefits under Public Law 449.

Coming back to title V here, title V would now take up from the war risk insurance and from Public Law 449, and from traditional maritime remedies, and bring all of these wartime seamen under the United States Employees Compensation Act, as modified herein. Now,

what does that mean in essence? That means that the obligation already exists towards the disabled and the dependents of the deceased. This, I do not believe, is a new obligation towards those people. It is new obligation towards-I am sorry, I said the obligation really exsts only towards the disabled. The obligation does not now exist tovards the dependents of the deceased. This is a new obligation tovards the dependents of the deceased. It is also a new obligation to certain number of borderline cases to which war risk insurance was not paid, for the reason that the direct connection with war risk could not be established, and to which, in many cases, no marine remedies were secured because relationship to the employers' negligence or relationship to the unseaworthiness of the ship could not be esablished. Therefore, we brought in this language which the Chairnan previously referred to, language which says that "if a wartime service seaman suffers a disability from injury or disease, incurred in or aggravated by maritime war service" That language is admittedly fairly broad and the question has arisen, How would you determine the relationship to wartime service. I think that the problem is not as difficult as has been thought. First of all, all merchant seamen secured sign-on examinations. Before they went to their ship they had a sign-on examination. All merchant seamen who entered the merchant marine during the war had preliminary examinations to ret their seamen's papers.

The United States Maritime Commission has kept a certain amount of records on all of these wartime cases. It has to keep those records in order to make payment under the war risk insurance.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. How frequently do these physical examinations take place? You say a sign-on examination. Is that on every ship?

Mr. LEVINE. My impression is that every time the man went to the ship during the war, he had a sign-on examination, in the latter part of the war, not in the earlier part.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Whether it were privately operated or whether it were Government-operated?

Mr. LEVINE. My impression is that it did not start until a little later in the war when most of the merchant marine was either owned or controlled by the United States Government.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. But your impression is that during the latter part of the war, in particular, the seaman was given a physical examination of some sort each time he signed on for a new voyage?

Mr. LEVINE. Yes, that is my impression.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Thank you.

Mr. LEVINE. That also exists in the contracts and is a prevailing thing in peacetime. It is primarily for sanitary purposes, to prevent a man with communicable diseases from coming aboard ship or to prevent the employer from incurring a liability for a man who is really going to sea with some sort of latent injury or some sort of illuness that may be aggravated by sea service.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. By whom was that examination conducted? By what agency?

Mr. LEVINE. The United States Maritime Commission, I believe, in conjunction with the United States Public Health Service.

61933-47- -8