the war effort, to the war itself, they paid the cases. Where there was fairly large reasonable measure of doubt they did not pay the cases and there was some grave hardship.

What I am saying here, in other words, is a time concept. It is a concept which has not been too prevalent outside of the armed forces and outside the merchant marine. I think we have a precedent for it in the merchant marine. The precedent is in traditional maritime law, which has existed for hundreds of years, that the shipowner is responsible for the man when he is ill in the service of the ship, whether aboard the ship or after he has served on it for some time. When he goes aboard a ship, under traditional maritime law, and in the course of a year, two, or three he develops a heart condition, the shipowner is responsible for him. In other words, we are suggesting a continuation, somewhat, of that concept into this bill.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The shipowner is responsible for him the rest of his life, is he?

Mr. LEVINE. No; he is responsible for him until he is either cured or until it is certain that he is incapable of being cured.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That has not anything to do with this situation. Your contention in this bill is for life, not that I say you are wrong but I do not see any connection.

Mr. LEVINE. I am saying there is some precedent in the shipowner paying for something which has no relationship to the employment in one sense, only time concept of the employment. You would not find that in any other industry in the country.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It did have a relation is what I understood you to say.

Mr. LEVINE. If you consider that sort of concept, then I must say it is different from all other worker compensation laws. In other words, if you die, or if an individual is working for the Government and dies in the Government service on Government property, he does not necessarily get paid by the Government for his widow. His widow does not get paid because he died while in Government service if he did die on Government property. You have to establish a causal relationship.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Take your case of tuberculosis. You would have to establish the fact he acquired it due to his duty on board ship?

Mr. LEVINE. It depends on what you mean by the words "due to." If you mean that you have to prove irrevocably that that man would not have gotten tuberculosis had he not been aboard that ship, I would say that is not the concept which prevails in the merchant marine. That is one of the reasons we have always

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That could not. be proved. He could not prove he would not have gotten it.

Mr. LEVINE. I do not know whether the burden is on the man to prove it or on the others to disapprove it.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You come to a pointed question on this whole legislation with regard to aid. In this bill we are setting up an entirely new organization at tremendous expense for administration. We are setting up a new organization for the purpose of covering something which exists and a lot of border-line cases which will make it difficult to administer. Why would not it be better to take this whole question of physical impairment and revise it and

dump it into the Workmen's Compensation and let them administer it as workmen's compensation under present established agencies under current laws somewhat modified to take care of it rather than trying to set up a new scheme?

Mr. LEVINE. Because we think it would be unfair to the merchant

seaman.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. To whom?

Mr. LEVINE. To a certain group of border-line cases that are relatively small in number.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. How many are there?

Mr. LEVINE. Probably 1,500, maybe a thousand.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Would it not be simpler to try to enact some special legislation for a few border-line cases like that than to set up a whole new agency which this will involve? It is cheaper in the long run.

Mr. LEVINE. I do not follow the point that this is setting up a whole new agency.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Certainly it is.

Mr. LEVINE. Let me develop that, if I may, and I will tell you why I do not follow it.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It is setting up an agency in the Maritime Commission for one thing to determine all this.

Mr. LEVINE. I might say, sir, the agency exists in the Maritime Commission and virtually all of the cases have already been brought to the light and everybody handled in one way or another. This would grant merely additional authority to the existing agency in the Maritime Commission to cover these cases which they have not been able to cover under existing authority.

I should also like to point out that the earlier bills put the entire burden in the United States Maritime Commission and there were objections by many Government agencies that this would be duplicating existing agencies' work. So this bill has been prepared so that the Maritime Commission is left with no responsibility other than the responsibility for which it is best trained and best equipped and the responsibility which it has carried out to date under Public Law 87 of the Seventieth-eighth Congress with regard to re-employment rights and the responsibility it has carried out to date in the war-risk insurance program and the responsibility carried out today under Public Law 449.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is quite too fast for me under these dozens of public laws with which you are thoroughly familiar. Mr. LEVINE. I am sorry.

Mr. BROPHY. He is trying to take care of the border-line cases to enlarge the interpretation of this particular bill instead of speaking for the bill.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Exactly. That is what I am saying. I am not convinced we can get legislation through to accomplish it. Mr. BROPHY. That is right. He is trying to extend what we are trying to get through. He is getting the border-line cases put in here as though he would run out of business.

Mr. LEVINE. The committee last year decided this language covers these border-line cases, Mr. Brophy. That is where I am getting my facts from.

1 Mr. BRADLEY of California. We have had an election since last fall and we have a new committee.

Mr. LEVINE. I am merely trying to tell you what the language means and what the interpretation of 25 Congressmen was. I am suggesting only that this is what the language states at the present time. I am suggesting as my authority for that statement that this language which is in the bill at the present time will cover the borderline cases is the report of Congress last year.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The point I am making, which we will lear up when you get through, is that I do not know if it is possible to cover these border-line cases without a great deal more expense. Mr. TOLLEFSON. I think he makes a good point there. I am glad ne brought it out.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. If we do report the bill out favorably we will have o report it out with a report. I am glad to have that thought brought nto it because if 25 Congressmen felt it did take care of border-line ases, then we should dwell upon it in our report that we did not vant it to cover border-line cases.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Is it not true that it is well to have all oints brought out?

Mr. BURKE. In border-line cases administrative procedure and iscretion takes care of that, is that not true? There will always be order-line cases which administrative discretion will have to take are of.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The mere fact this particularly loose anguage is put in the bill indicates they consider they not only want to take care of what they call border-line cases but great groups urther than that.

Mr. BURKE. Much of that comes down to administrative judgment, iscretion, and fairness in order to get justice.

Mr. LEVINE. The only real light I can shed on that is that this Dose language is taken from the Veterans' Statutes, these four or ve words, and the Veterans' Bureau administers all of their acts nder this basis. They do administer it on this basis.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. You have had some experience in the Workmen's ompensation Act in the State and the huge amount of legislation hich has come about as a result of the language of those bills. Mr. LEVINE. Yes.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. It is almost impossible to put down in hard and fast nguage a hard and fast rule.

Mr. LEVINE. I am urging you do not. If you put in the straight Workmen's Compensation concept you can practically forget the bill. t does not add anything more except for the death because under 449, nd you may want to correct that, the disability cases that are already overed have a continuation of the Compensation Act from that point n. We may want to amend Public Law 449 if you do not want to take this number of additional cases.

I am suggesting that this number of additional cases, which in part will admit are cases which perhaps are very clear cases of just time oncept of death during the period of service, I think you have some istinction there in previous maritime law and some distinction from

61933-47-11

employment that the man is aboard ship and away from the Unite States all the while he was subject to more strain and more nervousnes and more confinement, it is hard to make the same sort of case yo would make for short-sight employment under the Workmen's Con pensation Act. That has been taken care of by broadening that rul

I have some few cases, and I would like to review last year's cases types of records where men have not been covered, what their problen have been, and then you can make up your minds.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You will not have time to go into it th afternoon.

Mr. LEVINE. I will put it in letters to you or something. I will t to bring it across to you.

Mr. BROPHY. I think it will take him more than 15 minutes to through the explanation of the education provisions of this.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. We have reached quitting time alread Mr. BROPHY. Let him take that up at some other meeting. I not want to limit him to 15 minutes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. We are not trying to rush you at a We are just limited to just this time. I have taken this more or l as our own discussion. It will be necessary for us to adjourn at t present time until Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 3: 10 p. m., the meeting adjourned, to reconvene 10 a. m., Monday, May 19, 1947.)

SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

MONDAY, MAY 19, 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., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Willis W. Bradley of California (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Bradley of California (chairman), Tollefson, llen, and Havenner.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Gentlemen, the hearing will please ome to order.

I am sorry to have been a little late but on Monday morning it eems impossible to get the members together.

Mr. Haddock, you were going to give us some testimony this mornng so will you please take your place and proceed with your statement? TATEMENT OF HOYT S. HADDOCK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CIO

MARITIME COMMITTEE

We

Mr. HADDOCK. My name is Hoyt S. Haddock, executive secretary, CIO Maritime Committee, 132 Third Street SE., Washington, D. Č. It is nearly 4 years since legislation designed to aid in the readjustent of war service seamen was first introduced into Congress. ave had at least a dozen bills and lengthy hearings. The bill now efore this committee (H. R. 476) was reported out favorably in he Seventy-ninth Congress but failed to get a rule before adjourn

ent.

Today is May 19. Congressional adjournment is only 212 months way. Whereas the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries as already a long history in connection with this legislation, the ompanion Senate committee has little familiarity with the issue, nd time must be left for its consideration of the bill. Recognizing he priority of this committee the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee is delaying action on the seamen's readjustment ill introduced by Senator Wallace White.

It is our hope that these hearings will be concluded as soon as posible and the committee report out a bill which it considers fair. Accordingly, we have pared our testimony so as to cover only the nost essential points trusting that the new Members will refer to House Report 2303, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session; to the 80 pages of hearings in the Seventy-ninth Congress; and to Congressman Bland's forceful argument in behalf of this measure in a speech before the House on August 2, 1946.