SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE,

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, Allen, Brophy, and Havenner.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES V. MCCANDLESS, ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION; C. W. SANDERS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MARITIME DIVISION; REAR ADM. TELFAIR KNIGHT, ALL OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION-Resumed

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The committee will come to order. At the conclusion of our hearing yesterday, Mr. McCandless was making the presentation for the Maritime Commission. Do you wish to continue that, Mr. McCandless, or do you wish Admiral Knight to take your place?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. There were a number of questions that were asked yesterday that Admiral Knight would be more able to answer than I wished to yesterday, and since the admiral is here I thought perhaps the committee would prefer clearing up those questions with the admiral before proceeding with my statement. However, if the will of the committee is otherwise, I would be delighted to continue. Mr. BBADLEY of California. I think it would be well for you to go ahead and in the meantime we will look up our notes.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable, I might ask a question of the admiral.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Very well.

Mr. ALLEN. Admiral, I was trying to get the basis upon which there was any reason for rewording the services of the people who are mentioned on page 5 of the report, classification No. 4, men who were in training at the termination of the war and who never had the opportunity for active sea service, and by way of explanation, it occurs to me that the training in such an institution would be a very beneficial sort of training and that a good many of the subjects taught would be of the type which are taught in general courses in any school, and that the net result of the training would be that the enrollee would have had the benefit of what amounts to a type of college education for a period at the expense of the Government, with no

loss of any time or detriment to himself, but quite to the contract. How would that justify anything like a reward to that type of enrollee?

Admiral KNIGHT. I will attempt to answer that, sir.

Practically, the only trainees involved in this category are cadet midshipmen of the United States Merchant Marine Cadet Corps and the five State maritime academies. Those cadet midshipmen are enrolled in and appointed to the Naval Reserve; they are taught naval science and tactics during the entire course of this training which, in the case of the Cadet Corps is 4 years and in the case of the State maritime academies is 3 years. When they graduate from our schools they are graduated as ensigns in the Naval Reserve.

The Navy assigns naval officers on active duty to the various schools to conduct these courses in naval science and tactics. I see no difference between those men and those who were assigned to Annapolis, for instance; they were in the service; they had not finished their course of training so as to be able to go to sea, and they are in the same position as any other trainee in the armed services who, when the war ended, might have been in a training camp. They had gone into the service and had attested their willingness to serve, and I do not see where there is any distinction between men in these schools and those in any of the schools conducted by the various branches of the armed services, all of whom got the benefits of the GI bill of rights.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you mean to indicate a man who was in the Naval Academy without having done any other service would get the GI bill of rights benefits?

Admiral KNIGHT. No, sir, but the armed services and Army camps, the men in training all got the benefits.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. But we are talking about Kings Point in comparison with the Naval Academy, and I do not think anybody from the Naval Academy gets any such rights.

Admiral KNIGHT. If they went on active duty afterwards, they did. Mr. BRADLEY of California. But these people did not go on active duty.

Admiral KNIGHT. But the law contemplated that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADLEY of California. So did the Naval Academy contemplate it.

Admiral KNIGHT. When they went into the service, whether they went for training or went to serve on a merchant ship, they went into training for the purpose of serving on a merchant ship, and if the war ended before they get on the ship, that was not something they could determine themselves. That is the point I am making, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ALLEN. Might I ask a question at this point, Mr. Chairman? Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. What would be the average age of those men, in your judgment, Admiral?

Admiral KNIGHT. They come in from 17, on. I wou'd say the average age is about 19 of those we had in training; it may have been 20 towards the end of the war.

Mr. ALLEN. Would any of them have come under the provisions or will any of them come under the provisions that provide for hospitalization and medical treatment and the provisions for disability and death benefits?

Admiral KNIGHT. Not unless they had served in the merchant marine or were described in the definition here, which does include men in training. Actually the men in training become merchant seamen when they leave us and they get the benefits as merchant seamen; but the definition of what is included under this bill does include the men who are in training and they would get the benefits, yes, sir, under this bill.

Mr. ALLEN. Admiral, a question I may have to answer some day is, is it not a fact these people, because they had chosen a good school and had received beneficial education at the expense of the Government, are they, by reason of that fact alone, entitled to get the rest of the education they expect to receive from the Government?

Admiral KNIGHT. Actually, sir, I think they did not go into the schools for the purpose of getting an education as such, but for the purpose of learning how to be a merchant officer. They did get an education, just as I have always argued a great many of our GI men got educated at the expense of the Government during the war in many ways, and I think the same analogy applies here; at least I would think so.

Mr. ALLEN. I will grant part of that argument, Admiral, but I do not see where we are rewarding anything but a patriotic motive, and that, so far as I am concerned, is not a subject of pecuniary reward; I think that is part of the obligation of all of us without hope of reward.

Admiral KNIGHT. Of course, there is something in that, sir, but we have the same analogy again with members of the armed services who, as I say, might not have gotten on active duty in the combat areas but had gone into the Army and were ready to be called on combat duty, and they are subject to the provisions of the GI bill of rights, which is the same general thing as there is here, I would think.

Mr. ALLEN. Except that those people are taken in as part of a very broad class, where the age grouping would be far more extensive; there you had not only people who were about to enter college, but you also had people whose businesses and famililes were broken up, and I think that is a factor entirely lacking in the group covered by the seamen's bill of rights.

Admiral KNIGHT. Yes, but the great bulk of the men we took into the Army were young, from 18 to 20, the great bulk of them. Mr. ALLEN. There were a few older than that.

Admiral KNIGHT. Undoubtedly there were a few, but actually the Army did not want any men over 25. They had to take some, but they did not want them.

Mr. ALLEN. I would have said the average age of the people at Treasure Island, while I was there in an officer training course, would be nearer 30, and there were some up to 50, and in fact, one or two older. It was an entirely different kind of grouping, and I am seeking a way of justifying in my own mind a similar treatment so far as the reason for the treatment is concerned, of these people who went to your schools and never served actively, as against these people who were in the different types of schools such as pretty generally an older group, or part of a general group that included all types.

Admiral KNIGHT. I think that is true, sir, but there is no distinetion made under the law between people who were preparing themselves for combat duty and those who were actually engaged in it. The way the law is written, it applies to both, and I think the same analogy applies to these boys.

I am not prepared to argue that is a right thing; I see a distinction, but I do not think it should be applied as against these particular men who were going to serve in the merchant marine and not applied to the men who served, for instance, in the Coast Guard.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. May I say your analogy is not complete because, if it were, then midshipmen at the Naval Academy and at West Point would be subject to retirement for physical disability if men in training were considered in the same category, and they are not so considered and have no privileges whatever as far as the Government is concerned along those lines if they are not commisssioned.

Admiral KNIGHT. The Congress in enacting Public Law No. 87 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, which gave reemployment rights, set up the pattern for including these trainees along with the men act ually in the merchant marine. It construed the definition in that act and it was used in Public Act No. 87. So the Congress has passed on that.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It seems to me there is a difference of opinion as to what should be and what should not be.

Mr. HAVENNER. I would like to ask a question at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes.

Mr. HAVENNER. Admiral, would you give us your conception of that pattern as set out in Public Law No. 87?

Admiral KNIGHT. Yes, sir; I have the law here. It states:

When used in this Act the term "service in the merchant marine" means service as an officer or member of the crew on or in connection with a vessel documented under the laws of the United States or a vessel owned by, chartered to, or operated by or for the account or use of the Administrator, as an enrollee in the United States Maritime Service on active duty, and, to such extent as the Administrator shall prescribe, any period awaiting assignment to such service and any period of education or training for such service in any school or institution under the jurisdiction of the Administrator.

That is the language of Public Law No. 87 which defines this serv ice, which is analogous to the service defined in this bill.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In other words, that is the place you took your language from in this bill?

Admiral KNIGHT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is clear enough.

In our questioning yesterday, on page 4 of the proposed act, lines 15 and 16, we find that the word "vessel" does not include any vessel engaged in operation principally at inland ports or waters. The Maritime Commission has suggested it be made to read "within ports or inland waters of the United States" rather than leave it as broad as it is. We would like to know what actually is intended there. Does the Panama Canal come under the inland waters of the United States or what do you mean by that sort of service? Do pilots who operate out of ports of that character come under that category?

şir.

Admiral KNIGHT. I think Mr. McCandless could answer that better,