The letter is from World War Veterans of the United States Merchant Marine, 153 Chiswick Road, Brighton, Mass., dated May 9, 1947, directed to Willis Bradley, and is as follows:

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I wish to make it known that this organization, the World War Veterans of the United States Merchant Marine, has had a serious and sincere purpose in life ever since the days following the World War of 1917 and 1918, and when the United States Congress failed in its duty to the United States merchant marine sailors who had rendered our Nation such a vitally important war-winning service.

It was the Congress of the United States, in the First and in the Second World Wars, that authorized the recruiting and training of these men to man the ships, as well as appropriating the necessary money to train United States merchant seamen.

Early in 1936 the World War Veterans of the American Merchant Mariné was founded and organized for the purpose of helping to secure Government recognition of the wartime services of the officers and crewmen of the United States merchant marine. During the late mid-year of 1941 we accepted the World War II merchant marine sailors' cause in our campaign to help secure recognition for all war-time United States merchant sailors.

Let us look back to the days of the first World War, when it was essential to get our troop overseas, their equipment, food, medical supplies, and many of the other essential supplies that were needed for our troops overseas.

On June 10, 1917, the then-President, Woodrow Wilson, issued a proclamation to the young men of America to join the merchant marine, and in his proclamation be considered the men of the merchant marine just as important in the winning of the war as the men of the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard.

Our President Franklin Roosevelt of World War II issued a similar proclamation. For the first time in the history of our country, through our late President Roosevelt, men on the merchant marine were decorated for the heroic deeds performed on board ships while fighting the enemy submarines.

Our early legislative effort was wholly and practically an educational campaign. All members of Congress were contacted and informed how vitally important the United States merchant marine service with its brave, fearless, loyal seamen was and is to the welfare of our Nation; how the service rendered by the wartime merchant marine sailor has been of tremendous value in the proper carrying out of America's part in world wars, for it was this service that was in truth the main connecting link between our source of supplies in the United States and our troops in foreign soil, how it was the United States merchant marine sailors who were the first to meet the enemy U-boats, and it was their ships that were the vital targets for the U-boats underwater dealers of death that, because they maintained a certain liveliness, caused countless number of merchant marines to be shipwrecked, crippled, killed, drowned, burned to death in seas of burning oil, or frozen to death in frigid waters.

The dreadful events of recent years very clearly told every American about the important part of the United States merchant marine played in a war-winning service, a service of ferrying much-needed war essentials and its part in every invasion gave birth and growth to a very long casualty list of dead, missing, and prisoners of war, a casualty list that in the early part of the war greatly outnumbered the casualties of our armed forces. The merchant marine sailor, for the dangerous hazards they endured and the painful sufferings they felt, received and receives plenty of tribute but little else. Had the United States merchant marine failed in their duties, it would have been impossible for this country to bring about victory.

theaters of war.

There were many words about glory, credit, deeds of valor and honor, statements that American seamen deserve more than gratitude, a soldier telling of his first-hand knowledge and contacts with the merchant marine in various And there were words about rusting hulks of ships rotting in our ports after the last war and how the merchant seaman of that war was given a very bad deal. The theme of all these tributes seems to be the hope that Congress will see fit to enact favorable legislation by an overwhelming vote within the immediate future.

You have before you H. R. 476 which Congressman J. Hardin Peterson was so kind to draft and introduce. We come before you seeking consideration for these very men who Members of Congress not long ago sang their praises.

We are not seeking any reward for these men. We are asking for a just recognition and I am sure Congress in its action on this matter will give the

proper consideration. We are asking little enough in view of the all important service our brave, loyal merchant sailors rendered at the risk of life, limb, and health and that the provisions incorporated in H. R. 476 are very fair.

We, World War Veterans of the American merchant marine, ask that you gentlemen join with Congressman Peterson to make the Peterson Bill a reality, for by such action Congress and the people of the United States, a just and grateful people, will have corrected a grave injustice and will establish a nation's thank you to these gallant men of the United States Merchant Marine.

I would like to quote an article by General Douglas MacArthur about the Merchant Marine Sailor:

"They brought us our lifeblood and they have paid for it with some of their own. I saw them bombed off Corregidor and more recently I have seen the same thing happen to them in this area (the Southwest Pacific). When their ships were not blown out from under them by bombs, torpedoes, they have delivered their cargoes to us, who need them so badly."

In behalf of my shipmates of the World War Veterans of the American Merchant Marine I extend to Congressman J. Hardin Peterson, and to the members of this committee, and to our many Congressional friends, our thanks for hav ing made this hearing possible for the committee to take up H. R. 476. With kind regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

(s) GEORGE WALSH, One Gardner Street, Newton, Massachusetts, Chairman, Legislative Committee.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Mr. Levine, I believe you were going to take the stand.

STATEMENT OF SETH LEVINE, RESEARCH CONSULTANT OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS MARITIME COM MITTEE (Resumed)

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Mr. Levine, I believe you were going to point out matters which needed clarification. We will ask ques tions as you go along because we wish to learn all we can about your point of view on this subject.

Mr. LEVINE. On Wednesday, several questions were brought up. several questions were asked about them, and they were left hanging in mid-air. I since have gotten the facts. With your permission. I will go into that and put the factual information before you. Then from there I will go on with regard to an explanation as to why this bill is in a certain nature of civilian type benefits and then discuss some of the provisions of the bill from the draft.

I am sorry Mr. Bonner is not here. I will take the responsibility of contacting him directly since he was most interested in this. But I am sure the committee will want to know about the question of wages after a vessel is sunk. You will remember on Wednesday there was some discussion of that and I have said under peace-time maritime law the wages end as soon as a vessel is sunk. I was not sure about the wartime period. I have since learned that the Maritime War Emergency Board, which was set up early in the war, almost immediately after Pearl Harbor, issued a decision No. 5 which provided for the payment of wages during the full period of repatriation for men aboard vessels which were lost from war-risk causes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Full period of what?

Mr. LEVINE. Full period of repatriation; that is, until the man reached his home port once more. That was quite early in the war. We can say that almost from the beginning of the war wages were paid during repatriation for war-risk losses. Wages were not paid

for marine risk losses. In other words, those vessels lost from sinking or stranding, which had no connection with the war or which had only a distant connection with the war remained under peace time law. There was some dispute during the early periods of the war as to what was a marine risk and what was a war risk. Consequently, Congress in March of 1943 passed Public Law 17 which broadened the war risking program to include certain marine risks which were related to war risk. For instance, after Public Law 17 was passed it was decided that vessels which were lost due to collision in convoy were cases which would be compensable under war-risk insurance. Similarly, vessels lost because of black-out, or other measures which were related to the war.

Public Law 17 also provided permission to insure such cases retroactively so that in most cases men whose vessels were lost early in the war for marine risk causes ultimately did get paid their wages during the repatriation period.

I have here the Maritime Commission regulation which ultimately was issued which gave final legal basis to these decisions. It is Operations Regulation 72. It is dated September 30, 1943. The subject is Standard Rider for attachment to Shipping Articles concerning repatriation of crew following termination of voyage by reason of occurrence of marine or war-risk casualty."

In this operation regulation it is provided that in addition to transorting the man back to the United States the man shall be paid until rrival at the port of shipment basic wages plus emergency wage

ncreases.

I should like to point out that what the man is paid during hat eriod, in other words, are his basic wages exclusive of his additional onuses and exclusive of whatever other payments he may have, such s overtime, were he aboard ship. In other words, during the period f repatriation the entry rating would get approximately $82.50 a onth and during the period of repatriation the able seaman would et approximately $100 per month, which were the basic wages payable o those ratings at that time of the war.

You will note that this regulation refers only to all voyages of American-flag vessels owned by or under bare-boat charter to the War hipping Administration. There was a third category of vessels, me-chartered vessels, which were outside of the reach of the War hipping Administration on the basis of an order like this.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. They were time-chartered vessels priately owned and chartered for a fixed period of time?

Mr. LEVINE. And for a fixed sum for the complete unit.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes.

Mr. LEVINE. That is it was the shipowner's responsibility to worry Dout the crew, wages, fuel, and everything else. The Government lely paid him a rental basis for a complete operating ship. There as some question as to whether or not those operators of time charters ould pay wages during repatriation since it would have to come out their fee, out of their pocket in a sense. Subsequently the Maritime ommission issued a ruling stating that it would reimburse chartered perators for the wages paid during repatriation in addition to their ormal charter hire. So that on the question of wages during repatriaon we might say that for bareboat-chartered vessels and for Gov

ernment-owned vessels, wages were paid from the very earliest days of the war for war-risk and retroactive to cover marine risk..

For the time-chartered they were paid certainly after late 1943 for war-risk and marine-risk. Whether the time-charter operators went back and paid marine risk cases before 1943 depended on the company itself. I am not sure of the details. It would require getting the companies in. It is not too pertinent. By and large, wages were paid during repatriation during the war period.

I might point out, however, that in peacetime the normal peacetime law has resumed for those vessels that are privately operated today.

Another question which was raised was the question of coverage during the First World War and during this World War under the United States Employees' Compensation Act. I have checked and find these to be the facts:

During World War I, and subsequent thereto, employees aboard vessels operated by or for the Emergency Fleet Corporation, and former United States Shipping Board, where employment relations with the United States existed, were covered by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Whether or not there were some vessels which were on a time-charter basis during World War I, I am not sure. I believe there probably were and they would not have been covered under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.

In this war the Army Transport Service was covered under the act throughout the war. Employees on Government-owned and on bareboat vessels were probably covered until the passage of Public Law 17, 78th Congress, although there is some doubt. I say there is some doubt because I have checked personally with Mr. William Radner, the former general counsel of the War Shipping Administration, who is now in private practice.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Why would he consider vessels privately owned would be covered?

Mr. LEVINE. No; the only vessels covered were Government-owned and bareboat charter vessels.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I misunderstood.

Mr. LEVINE. It is clear the time-charter vessels were not covered and that was one of the major reasons for the passage of Public Law 17.

I say that the employees on Government-owned and bareboat charter vessels probably were covered. I think the Commission felt they were covered and paid a number of cases. There have been various court cases which make it possible to take the viewpoint on the one hand that seamen aboard WŜA-owned ships were Government employees; on the other hand there were cases ruling against that. It depends on what purpose you are asking the question, whether or not you get the answer that they were Government employees or they were not Government employees.

For instance, there was a recent Supreme Court decision, the Hust case, Hust v. Moore McCormack, in which it was decided that a seaman aboard a WSA vessel has the right to sue the agent. The Government had claimed it was responsible and all suits would have to be against it. The Supreme Court, I believe, decided that the general agency was in the nature of a bareboat charter and, as such,

the agent was responsible under general maritime law. So the situation is somewhat confused as to whether or not seamen were Government employees.

The other problem raised on Wednesday was the question of medical examinations. I told you at that time, and I have checked and now I am sure of it, that the private companies maintained their own medical examinations and they were rather extensive. I have since been informed that those records are available to the United States Government and they have rather good records on medical care early in the war taken by company doctors.

In the latter part of 1943, possibly September 28, the United States War Shipping Administration issued Operations Regulation No. 40, which set up a Government medical program for the wartime merchant marine. This program was initiated on January 1, 1944. From that time on, until the program closed on June 30, 1946, which is beyond the effective date of this bill, every man who was sent to a ship secured a rather thorough physical examination. Those seamen who preferred to remain aboard the ship on which they had previously served; that is, to resign on that vessel, secured a ship-signed inspection for obvious defects for communicable diseases and the like. In addition we must remember that approximately 55,000 to 60,000 of the merchant seamen who served during this war were permanent peacetime seamen; approximately 40,000, perhaps, were former merchant seamen who were recruited on return to sea. At the peak of the war we probably. had 256,000 seamen serving at one time. There may have been as many of 450,000 men who served in the merchant marine at one time or another during the war. I think it is fair to say that two-thirds to 80 percent of the men who served during the war were men who went through the maritime training services. When they went through the maritime training service they secure a complete physical examination. I believe the training services stated that it trained in excess of 180.000 men.

Thus we find that we have the company examinations on sign-ons before 1944. We have the program from 1944 on for sign-ons. We have the fact that every man who secured his license or papers during the war was required to have a physical examination of the Coast Guard, and we have the fact that all the trainees were required to take a thorough physical examination.

In addition there are the records of merchant seamen who were hospitalized in the United States Public Service facilities, and I have been informed that there are some 80,000 cases of merchant seamen receiving some attention in overseas medical facilities, largely of the Army; perhaps some of the Navy.

It would appear, then, that we have rather complete records on the medical history of merchant seamen during the war. Dr. Fuller, who had been head of the War Shipping Administration program of the Maritime Commission's medical program, has informed me, and I wish you gentlemen would call him to the stand when the Maritime Commission appears, that he feels the records are very adequate to make determinations of probable timing of disabilities. I might say personally that it seems to me the examinations were at least as numerous and perhaps more numerous than members of the armed forces had since the man was required to sign-on to get a medical examination.