Mr. BRADLEY of California. We can get information from those two on that point.

Mr. LEVINE. I wish you would ask those questions directly.

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Levine, do I understand now that when a man went to sea and returned back he was 30 days on shore?

Mr. LEVINE. Not 30 days; 2 days for every week at sea.

Mr. BONNER. Whatever he has, another crew was made up for another ship, and they just sent down word to the hiring hall that they wanted some of this and some of that, and he just picked up his bag and went to the ship and reported?

Mr. LEVINE. No.

Mr. BONNER. Do you mean to convey the impression now that every time he went back to sea there was a thorough physical examination conducted?

Mr. LEVINE. I would not use the word "thorough." I am not prepared to say what sort of a physical examination it was. My impression is that virtually every time he went back, the doctors, if it was a private shipper, or the United States Public Health doctors. did give him an examination at the docks or at the ship.

Mr. BONNER. That is what makes a clear distinction here. A man in the Navy was under naval jurisdiction all the time. The man in the Army, after he took that original physical, was, too. But this man was not.

Mr. LEVINE. That is right, sir.

Mr. BONNER. That is what brings all the cloudiness in this bill. He went ashore, and stayed for a long time completely out of any discipline by anybody but himself. The sailor and the soldier were under discipline all the time. I am glad you brought these three lines out here, because I had read those with care "aggravation, and so forth." Mr. LEVINE. That is the point I am trying to come to now.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Mr. Levine, we have come to the end of our time for today. I have enjoyed your testimony and I am sure the other members of the subcommittee have. As I said earlier, the chairman of the full committee will have a meeting here at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning to consider legislation. I shall be very much pleased to go ahead immediately afterwards, and continue with your testimony, Mr. Levine. I would like to hear a great deal more, the way you are presenting it. Will you be available tomorrow? Mr. LEVINE. Yes, sir; I certainly will.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Very well. Any of you who would care to be here tomorrow, say, by 10:45, we will resume with your testimony at that time. We will resume with you, Mr. Levine, tomorrow morning, and I hope you have looked up some of these points. I do congratulate you upon giving us the testimony as you are doing. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Are there any other witnesses here who would wish to appear tomorrow morning?

Mr. BRADLEY of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a telegram to read into the record, if I may. Incidentally, I see I have a new title. The telegram was received just a few minutes ago. It is addressed to the Reverend Joseph Bradley, Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, 219 Old Building Capitol Hill.

Hope the Committee will see fit to act favorably on H. R. 476.

GRACE M. JENKINS, Detroit, Mich., Ward 16, District 55.

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levine's testimony was correct about that examination. That is a fact. Either a private doctor or a doctor of the Maritime Commission examined the man before he went aboard.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Thank you.

Mr. BRADLEY of Michigan. Right at that point, might I not ask that all during the war the Maritime Commission had a rather extensive health center in downtown New York as far as that point is concerned? Mr. NORTON. I think you are right, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of Michigan. Thank you.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. This hearing is adjourned until such time as Chairman Bradley's meeting has been completed. (Whereupon the subcommittee adjourned.)

SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE

ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D. C.

The Subcommittee convened at 10 a. m., Hon. Willis W. Bradley of California, chairman, presiding.

Present: Messrs. Bradley of California, chairman, Tollefson, Burke, Allen, Brophy, Jackson and Havenner.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The hearing will come to order. We will proceed, gentlemen, with hearings on H. R. 476. It is my hope that we can continue this morning and continue this afternoon again for couple of hours since the House does not meet this afternoon. When we discontinued, Mr. Levine was testifying. I understand, however, that Mr. Kingsley was coming down from New York today. Has he arrived?

Mr. KINGSLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In order not to delay you, Mr. Kingsley, we will ask you to take the stand and give your name, position, and so forth, to the reporter.

You may make whatever statement you want and then be prepared to answer questions. I would suggest and hope that you keep to the point as much as possible. Our great difficulty in these hearings with the reasonably limited time we have is the difficulty of getting members here when they are so busy on other matters, and the difficulty of keeping people to the point. They seem always to want to start new discussions. We usually ask to get a certain point. We would like to get it when we do.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE L. KINGSLEY, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE CADET CORPS

I am Theodore L. Kingsley, executive vice-president of the Alumni Association of the United States Merchant Marine Cadet Corps.

I come before you today on behalf of the more than 8,000 graduates of the United States Merchant Marine Cadet Corps, almost all of whom hold commissions in the United States Naval Reserve, and over 2,000 of whom entered the Navy as ensigns, active duty, upon graduation from the Cadet Corps. We, as a group, then, have what we feel is an overall picture of this important question: whether the merchant seaman who served his country during the recent emergency, should have an adequate readjustment program. We wish to recommend

to the committee the passage of H. R. 476 with certain revisions as appended to this report.

Since many of the most pertinent and vital facts supporting this bill have already been presented to the committee or have been prepared and will shortly be incorporated into these hearings by various interested groups, I shall not take the valuable time of the committee this morning by duplicating such efforts.

I have chosen, instead, to dwell briefly on the principles involved in the passage of this Act. Those who have opposed the Merchant Seamen's Wartime Service Act have repeatedly presented certain arguments and statements of opinion based mostly on prejudice, selfishness and hearsay. The arguments usually given cover:

a. The terrifically high salaries received by merchant seamen. b. The fact that the average merchant seaman could have joined an armed service and receive the benefits of the GI Bill.

c. The probability that other civilian services will ask for the same rights if H. R. 476 is passed.

d. The "great" cost of H. R. 476.

e. The GI bill of rights is for GI's only.

In regard to the high salaries received by merchant seamen: Tabulated governmental figures reveal that the merchant seamen's "takehome" pay averaged about the same as that of men in the armed services of corresponding rank. Furthermore, the American seaman had little of the privileges afforded the men in the armed forces, and was truly the "forgotten man." It is unfair, therefore, that the question of salaries should become so important a factor to the opponents of this bill when salaries and bonuses earned by GI's are not a basis for granting benefits under the GI bill of rights.

Regarding the individual's choice to serve in the American merchant marine, may I say this: The governments we fought used their dictatorial rule over their people to carry on their war; whereas, the Government of the United States maintained its faith in its democratic system and the American people by preserving that democratic system during the country's most dangerous and trying time, World War II, refrained from compusory measures whenever and wherever it could. The victorious conclusion of the war proved the soundness of this confidence. At the call of the Government for seamen to man the merchant ships, thousands of Americans, young and old, answered voluntarily and within 3 months were on the dangerous seas carrying the much-needed supplies to all parts of the world and to all battlefields. The Navy and Army released many to serve in the merchant marine. It was officially recognized by the armed forces that these men were more valuable to the Government and the war effort aboard the merchant vessels than in the armed forces. In short, Americans were allowed to serve their country in the service of their choice. They had the right to select the Navy or the Red Cross, or the Army Air Corps, or the Infantry, or the Naval Intelligence, or the Coast Guard, or the Quartermaster Corps, or the war correspondents, or the merchant marine. They selected a particular service because of certain personal reasons known best to those individuals. In most prominent of these reasons probably was a conviction that they would be of most value to their country in that particular service. Each, however, had one thing in common-each took the supreme risk