rights and privileges of gentlemen attending one or another of the service academies. I consulted with Mr. Odom, the Solicitor for the Veterans' Administration, and he concurs in the views I expressed yesterday that section 10 of Public Law 144 of the Seventy-eighth Congress gave to the cadets and midshipmen, and the other individuals mentioned, the status of having been engaged in active military or naval service, and as such entitled the cadets and midshipmen to all the rights, benefits, and privileges of men in the service, and the acceptance of a commission or service as an officer was not a condition precedent to the receipt of any benefits.

Of course, there are qualifications to that, the first one which was mentioned yesterday being the educational benefit. The time spent in the Academy would not be considered as entitling them to educational privileges. That would be building education on education which they felt was unnecessary. Otherwise they are entitled to all the benefits to the GI bill. If they suffer a disability or are severed from service because of some jurisdiction or other cause the same benefits would accrue to them as if they were serving with the troops or aboard ship and were severed from the service for one reason or another. Of course, if they are severed because of misconduct they are not entitled to the benefits the same as would gentlemen actively serving with troops or aboard ship.

Mr. BRADLEY. Do I understand from that, then, that a midshipman. we will say, at the Naval Academy, who graduates but does not accept a commission is entitled to the various rights under the GI bill of rights such as Federal loans, education, and all that sort of thing?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact he would be entitled to them even if he did not graduate. Suppose he spent only two and a half years there, and for reasons that were not based upon misconduct or something of that sort, where it was his fault. that he was severed from the service, but if he were severed from the service at the determination of the Government without fault on his part

Mr. BRADLEY. Even if he went into the Academy and then resigned due to failure in his studies?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I did not ask that specific question, but I asked him specifically about the individual who went in and completed the course, received his diploma but did not serve as an officer, he said he would be covered. I said, "Now the next question is assuming that the individual attends the Academy and leaves the Academy or does not finish." He said he, too, would be covered unless due to misconduct or other reasons of that sort which would deprive him of the privileges. But the service is service tantamount to active service as a commissioned officer or as a regular GI.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

If you will proceed we will try to complete this statement this morning.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. The relation of existing seamen's benefits to the proposed benefits under title V: Prior to our entry into the war, collective bargaining between operators and unions instituted the program of war-risk insurance. During the war war-risk insurance was issued by the War Shipping Administration under the deter

minations of the Maritime War Emergency Board which was a quasi-governmental body appointed by the President, authorized under agreement of the seamen and shipowners to specify the terms and conditions under which war-risk insurance would be furnished to seamen. This Board fixed the provisions of both war-risk insurance and the war bonuses. It was a body on which neither labor nor industry was represented, and was independent of any other Government agency.

Subtitle "Insurance" of title II of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, empowered the Maritime Commission to provide insurance against war and marine risks for seamen. The War Shipping Administration and the Maritime Commission provided such limited war-risk insurance during the last 5 years, under terms and conditions prescribed by the Maritime War Emergency Board. The insurance provides a $5,000 death benefit payable to a beneficiary designated by the seaman in the event of his death while in service, from war risk and certain war-caused marine risks only. After March 1943 the beneficiary must have been within a specified class of relatives comparable to the classes specified in the National Service Life Insurance Act for members of the armed forces. The cost of this insurance was borne during most of the war period by the War Shipping Administration which was the owner or charterer of practically the entire merchant marine. In addition to rights granted under such insurance, seamen have a right of recovery against the vessel operator for negligence under the Jones Act, and also for unseaworthiness under the maritime law. Appropriate setoffs prevent duplication of recovery out of Government funds.

On page 193 of part 1 of the hearings before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on H. R. 2346, and other bills affecting seamen, there is set forth a memorandum to the committee from the War Shipping Administration which gives in some detail the situations which title V of the bill is intended to remedy.

Two principal disadvantages exist with respect to this insurance program. First, the $5,000 war-risk insurance is generally exhausted at a time when the dependents of the deceased war-service seamen are still in need, and, second, a number of deaths occurring during war service were not provided for under the limited war-risk insurance policy since they would not be directly related to war-caused events. Mr. ALLEN. Can you tell me what some of those instances were? Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes. If a man is washed overboard without fault on the part of the employer, there would be no recovery under the insurance because it was not within the terms of the policy of either a war risk or a related marine risk. There would be no recovery under law because there was no negligence on anyone's part, and the family of such a seaman would be without any benefits at all.

The same situation resulted from cases wherein a fireman was lighting a boiler and there was a flash-back which did not damage the vessel. The burns and the fumes which were inhaled resulted in the man's death. There was no negligence on anyone's part. There was no war risk involved. There was no damage occasioned to the vessel. consequently, that man's family went without benefit.

Mr. ALLEN. Is there any reason why such a man's family should get a benefit when a similar seaman either before the war or since the war should not be so benefited?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Frankly, sir, I think that seamen under circumstances of that sort should be covered by some sort of provision such as compensation. The maritime law has grown up somewhat apart from the civil law. They have never been covered by a compensation act. They have been given certain protection such as the Public Health Service protection, but industrially they do not have that which has become universally accepted as a social protection for members in industry as a whole.

Mr. ÄLLEN. Is it true, then, that this provision is something which would more properly be found in the general industrial law than in a law related to wartime service?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. The immediate answer to your question is "yes." However, since seamen have not been so covered, and I know of no general movement to cover them wholly, this seems to be a fitting and proper means of giving them something in addition to that which they would have because of their war service.

Now, in this connection I think it is interesting to note that the crews and officers of the War Department Transportation Corps vessels are covered by the United States Employees' Compensation Act, and so far as I know, with the exception of the Coast and Geodetic Survey which has a very small number of civilian employees, they are the only seamen who have the benefit of compensation coverage. This would be a compensation coverage for these individuals who qualify within the terms of the bill and given to them as a war-service benefit. I think it is a small benefit, if anything.

Mr. BRADLEY. Did I understand you correctly as saying that the members of the Army Transportation Corps are covered? Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, they are, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY. As a personal opinion only, from your experience in the Maritime Commission, would you not believe that men going to sea should be covered under general law exactly the same as men working in industry ashore against accidental death or injury?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think that they should be covered for accidental death or injury. However, I do not believe they should be covered in exactly the same manner because their employment is not the same. I think that the coverage should be accommodated to the

Mr. BRADLEY. I appreciate that the seamen's organizations themselves may not wish that type of coverage. They may prefer to rely on the general laws they now have, but we show a grave defect in those general laws. A man injured, we will say, in a fireroom has no recourse except against the employers, and that normally would come through his union. It would seem to me to be an unfortunate situation that a man going to sea would not have general coverage of the same character as a man ashore. That is what I am trying to bring out.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. He certainly should have coverage tantamount to and fitted to the peculiarities of his calling. I think there is no question about that as my personal opinion.

Mr. BRADLEY. I am merely asking for your personal opinion and not for any opinion of the Maritime Commission.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY. Going back now to the first paragraph of today's discussion, I note in there a statement, "The War Emergency Board was authorized under agreement of the seamen and shipowners to specify

the terms and conditions under which war-risk insurance would be furnished to seamen."

I have been led to the conclusion that in this authorization both the seamen's organizations and the shipowners definitely agreed to allow the War Emergency Board to set forth the bonuses, and so forth, to be paid, and that those organizations would accept those bonuses without recourse to any other action such as protests or strikes. Is that the case or not?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I am satisfied that it is.

Mr. Jackson, my associate, has been in our Labor Relations Division and has worked rather closely with the Maritime War Emergency Board and he is intimately familiar with its creation and operation. I would like to have him answer any additional specific questions which the committee may have.

Mr. BRADLEY. It is, then, a fact that the seamen's organizations gave up their generally acknowledged right to strike or quit work, and that they turned that over to the War Shipping Board and allowed them to make the decision. Is that right?

Mr. PAUL JACKSON. The seamen's union and seamen generally throughout the war had a no-strike pledge in effect and, in fact, there were no strikes. The Maritime War Emergency Board was not set up for the particular purpose of avoiding strikes, but as part of the agreement, of course, the no-strike pledge was inserted.

Mr. BRADLEY. They did, then, accept these decisions of the War Emergency Board with good grace and without question. Mr. PAUL JACKSON. Absolutely.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

Will you proceed?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. In justice to the families of seamen who gave their lives during the war, supplementary payments should be granted where continuing dependency exists. Serious inequities have occurred by reason of the total lack of protection in a large number of death cases. If a war-service seaman dies as a result of disease or accident not directly war-related, his dependents are without protection. These inequities have been recognized, and for a long time a cure therefor has been sought. Title V would take care of such

cases.

Although the limited war-risk insurance coverage provided seamen by the War Shipping Administration was without charge to the seamen, it should be noted that members of the armed forces received similar coverage without cost, since the premium paid under national-service life insurance was based on the Government assuming the total cost of the war risk involved. The premium paid, therefore, covered only non-war-related risks against which seamen were not covered.

May I interrupt? The total disability provisions of the national war life insurance is also borne wholly by the Government without cost to members of the service.

Prior to the enactment of Public Law 17 (78th Cong., approved March 24, 1943; 57 Stat. 45) civilian merchant seamen on vessels owned or bare-boat chartered by the United States were for purposes of United States employees' compensation benefits considered employees of the Federal Government and upon their election, had the same rights to benefits accorded other civilian employees of the

Government under the United States Employees' Compensation Act. These benefits included continuing aid to the dependents of deceased seamen who died in the service of their Government. Public Law 17 provided, among other things, that seamen employed through the War Shipping Administration—

shall not be considered as officers or employees of the United States for the purpose of the United States Employees' Compensation Act.

Public Law 17 left to seamen on Government-owned vessels or their dependents in case of their death or injury the right to sue the Government. As previously mentioned, the seamen or his dependents, as a condition precedent to recovery, must prove negligence or unseaworthiness of the vessel. Such proof under wartime conditions was either extremely difficult and expensive or impossible.

As in the death cases, a disabled seaman may be covered by warrisk insurance if the disability is war-related, and he has rights at law or admiralty if negligence by the employer or unseaworthiness of the vessel can be proved. General maritime law permits certain rights under the doctrine of wages, maintenance, and cure when a seaman is injured or becomes ill in the service of his vessel. Under this doctrine he may receive wages to the end of the vessel's voyage or until he is reemployed, whichever first occurs, usually a matter of days; free hospitalization; and medical care and maintenance. If a seaman is hospitalized not at his own expense, he does not receive the daily maintenance allowance, which usually is several dollars per diem. The disability provisions of the war-risk insurance policy prescribed by the Maritime War Emergency Board permit payments, in the event of injury or illness resulting from war risks and certain warrelated marine risks, at the rate of $100 a month while hospitalized, and $150 a month thereafter up to a total amount of $5,000. Under this policy, if the disability is total and permanent, in certain situations additional installments totaling $2,500 are payable. Public Law 449 (78th Cong.) further provides that the Maritime Commission may make payments to seaman for permanent total or partial disability arising out of war risks, as long as such disability exists and after the insurance benefits are exhausted. Public Law 449 (78th Cong.) was enacted as a temporary measure, as is set forth in the reports of the congressional committees, on that measure pending a future comprehensive survey.

Additional legislation was and is necessary to cover the problem of disabled war-service seamen, whose injuries cannot be directly related to war risk, although incurred in the service of their vessel and our Government during the war period. Title V of H. R. 476 meets this problem.

Mr. BRADLEY. Would you pause there for a few moments? You speak of Public Law 449 being a temporary measure, and also that it provided that the Maritime Commission may make further payments to seamen for permanent total or partial disability arising out of war risks as long as such disability exists and after insurance benefits are exhausted.

How temporary is that measure?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think it is as temporary as it takes Congress to modify it. Until it is modified by Congress, I think, however, that it is permanent. The attention is called to the temporary nature of it