great difference in compensation received," which appears to be the fundamental point upon which the basis of opposition is established. I would again bring out, so there will be absolutely no misunderstanding, that everything we have had brought forward here by governmental sources has indicated that there is only a very slight difference in over-all compensation; that we cannot accept any broad statement which is merely a statement of supposed fact that this is so without some support for it.

If the American Legion-for which I have all respect-considers that that argument should have weight, they must present us with something to support that statement. We can not accept anything else.

I am not after you particularly. Every one of these committee meetings at which I have presided has been told the same thing. Yesterday we heard from the Coast Guard and I told them they had to give us facts: that we could not accept these broad statements. I have had too much experience with that type of testimony.

If you can show us-and I don't say you can't-if you can show us by the presentation of facts that this is the case, we shall be pleased to give it every consideration. On the showing you have made it cannot even be considered, because you have made no showing whatsoever to support it.

Mr. HAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, when some of the witnesses were here for the Maritime Commission I recall that I asked that this table of comparative compensation which they said was inserted in the hearings last year be presented again for this record. I don't know whether that has been done, but it seems to me that if it has been done, that table might be submitted to the organization which this witness represents and they could be asked to criticize it.

Mr. BRADLEY. Might I say, Mr. Havenner, that at the time you asked for that table to be submitted I remarked that the Maritime Commission would reenter it in the record. I therefore objected to putting it in. I am wrong in that. The Maritime Commission did not reenter it in the record. I think, with your permission, it should be entered. You were entirely correct. At that time I opposed it because I thought that the Maritime Commission might resubmit a recalculated table, but they have not done so. Therefore that tablej should be entered in the record and it will be done.

The Legion is welcome to take that table and criticize it as much as it wishes. But as far as I can see these are the statistics on which we! must base our opinion, because nothing has been submitted to rebut it. I do not know whether you agree with me or not.

Mr. HAVENNER. It was introduced in the hearings at the last session and it has not so far been challenged. I think if someone does challenge it, they should give us detailed criticism of it.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Hayden, the office will furnish you with a copy of that table which still stands unchallenged as the official rates of pay for merchant seamen in comparison with members of the armed forces. I would suggest that if you wish consideration to be given to your contention, you must challenge that statement and prove that it is not

correct.

Is that a correct statement, Mr. Havenner?

Mr. HAVENNER. I think that would be fair to both sides, Mr. Chair

man..

Mr. BRADLEY. Then we have come to the end of your statement. In order that there will be no possible misunderstanding after all of this smoke-screen we have been having back and forth, I would again lay it directly on the line and say to you that we are confronted with a condition in which thousands of men, thousands of Americans went to sea, many of them young, and during which service they were killed or injured; as a result of which their dependents are in need; as a result of which many men themselves are in need of care and assistance. Part of this bill at least-I am not mentioning the educational features now-the aid feature is intended to take care of that situation. It is the duty of this committee to act upon that bill in accordance with our own consciences and with what we think the American people want us to do.

I have endeavored to get a statement from the American Legion representative as to whether or not the Legion is opposed to our granting aid to that category of person affected. So far you have not wished to answer except as set forth in this particular statement. I am not now asking you to answer; I am merely giving you an opportunity to answer that if you wish, before you leave the stand.

Mr. HAYDEN. I will merely answer by standing on the action of our national executive committee as being opposed to this legislation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

Have you anything further you would like to say in amplification of what you have stated?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. May I ask the witness a question?

Mr. BRADLEY. Certainly.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I came in late and the witness may have touched Ipon this.

There is one other thing in connection with this whole matter which as been touched upon by other witnesses. That is, a matter of the isk that a lot of these seamen took when they went into the danger one. As I understand it, Mr. Hayden, the percentage of casualties mongst merchant seamen was just about as great as the percentage of casualties in the armed services. Do you know anything about that? Mr. HAYDEN. I don't know the comparison figures.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Did your organization take into consideration the isk which these seamen undertook? I am not talking about all of hem. I am not talking about those who were stationed in the United States or on shore, or anything of that sort. I am speaking about he men who went into the war zones.

Did you take into consideration the risk those men took when you were arriving at your opposition to the bill?

Mr. HAYDEN. Our national merchant marine committee went into all phases of this very thoroughly. I know that they didn't just decide this in a minute. There was some difference of opinion in the Legion. We have away over 3,000,000 men and we could not expect them all to be unanimous. But generally speaking they are in favor of our program.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Do you feel-just speaking to you personally-you may not care to answer it-what is your personal view of these men who took just as great a rick as armed-services members?

Mr. HAYDEN. I think that compared to what benefits the veterans have received; no.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Assuming that the discrepancy of pay was not as great as you indicate here, do you think then they would be entitled to some consideration?

Mr. HAYDEN. We feel positive that there was a big discrepancy. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Just assuming that there was not?

Mr. HAYDEN. I would not want to assume there was not, because I am convinced that there was. I know that the bonus, for instance, in the case of a suicide plane attacking a convoy, was $125-even if it did not attack the ship. Every time a suicide plane closed in on a harbor where a ship was anchored, or on a convoy, they got $125, in addition to which they got paid extra money while they were in t..ose

waters.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Assuming that the casualties on a percentage basis were just as great as in the armed services, don't you think they would be entitled to something, regardless of the $125 paid to them?

Mr. HAYDEN. Not unless you are going to greatly multiply what you are giving to the veterans of the armed forces.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Why would they be entitled to that?

Mr. HAYDEN. For the simple reason that they were not paid in proportion to what the merchant marine were paid. All of these other things I covered-the conditions under which they served. Mr. TOLLEFSON. You are going under the assumption that there was a discrepancy in pay, are you?

Mr. HAYDEN. Oh, yes. That is one of the items.
Mr. TOLLEFSON. I have no further questions.

Mr. BRADLEY. I am led to believe that there is a misunderstanding in regard to these attacks. Either you misunderstand or I misunderstand. As I understand you to say, every time a plane came in they got $125. It has been my understanding that could not be paid more than once in a day. Is that the case, or not?

Mr. HAYDEN. My understanding was that every time, sir, they were paid a bonus of $125.. If there was any restriction about bonuses once a day, I don't know about it.

Mr. BRADLEY. Perhaps Mr. Levine can answer that for us.

Mr. LEVINE. Early in the war, port-attack bonuses were paid only once to a port. Subsequently the system was changed to make the bonus payable whenever the vessel was attacked, either within a port or in waters outside. Seamen on vessels that were destroyed or substantially damaged, or on which anyone had been killed or seriously injured as a result of enemy action, were entitled to a vessel-attack bonus of $125. This bonus was not payable under circumstances in which enemy planes merely flew overhead.

I am reading from the statement of John M. Carmody, Chairman of the Maritime War Emergency Board and former Maritime Commissioner, printed on page 137 of the hearings on H. R. 2346 in October of 1945.

In other words, the planes could come over every day from now until doom's day and the seamen of the merchant marine would not receive their $125 bonus unless the ship were attacked.

Mr. HAYDEN. When did that go into effect? He said "subsequently."

Mr. BRADLEY. My understanding was it was for most of the war. Now, sometimes we make mistakes, but we can always have them proved to be correct or incorrect.

Mr. HAYDEN. It wasn't in effect while I was out in the Philippines, nd that was after we washed up Normandy.

Mr. LEVINE. I am quite sure it happened long before the European war was over. I will get the dates for you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADLEY. I would like to have that very definitely brought out, s soon as you can.

Mr. HAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I understood the witness to state hat the policy of the American Legion had been based upon the vestigations and findings of the merchant marine subcommittee-is hat what you call it?

Mr. HAYDEN. The merchant marine committee of our national conention committee.

Mr. HAVENNER. In view of that fact, wouldn't it be helpful for us o have someone here representing that committee-the people who ctually formed the policy of this committee?

Mr. BRADLEY. I was about to ask that very question-if they did not ave their chairman or some member of that policy committee availble to appear before the committee.

Mr. HAYDEN. I will take that up with our director, Mr. Chairman. They are not in Washington. It is the responsibility of the national egislative committee to send the Legion's views to the Congress based n the findings and recommendations of our different committees. Mr. BRADLEY. I don't know how other committees are, but this comittee insists on having more than recommendations; it must know what these recommendations are based upon-must get down to brass acks.

I appreciate and regret a little bit that apparently I am becoming he big bad wolf here for the veterans, and also for the merchant amen and the labor organizations. The mere fact that I am insisting n finding out all that can be found out seems to make everyone of hem feel individually that he is being picked on. But we must have he facts.

Mr. HAVENNER. I agree with that viewpoint, Mr. Chairman. This s an important point, and we should have all the authoritative infornation we can possibly obtain. I am particularly interested in trying 0 get back again into the philosophy that underlies these varying positions.

Some of the early testimony here, Mr. Chairman, indicated that the merchant seamen of their own volition and on their own responsibility brought about this condition whereby they were able to serve n this civilian status. I am still not convinced that that was a fact. think that policy was established by the Federal Government and hat the Federal Government, represented by the President, decided for reasons it no doubt considered good at the time, that it was better for the purposes of the war effort to maintain the merchant marine

on a civilian status.

Now I don't think any of the individuals in the merchant marine had anything whatsoever to do with that. That is my own opinion. Mr. BRADLEY. You and Mr. Tollefson and I have sat through all of these hearings. I don't think anyone can claim that we are prejudiced one way or the other.

I entered these hearings with a great many of these questions in my mind, and I have found that, in my opinion, the facts as you have stated them are entirely right, that the merchant marine had nothing to do with the conditions under which they operated. We have found that the fact they remained under civilian control was due to a direct order from Mr. Roosevelt, then President, and that nothing else was concerned in it at all as far as I know.

I am sure you want to get the facts, just as I do.

Mr. HAVENNER. I do; and I would like to have some facts upon which to base that opinion. I have formed this opinion without really any authoritative background for it. I don't know whether my opinions are of great importance, but this question keeps running through my mind: Whether this whole difference in status between the men in the armed forces and the men who participated in the war effort on a civilian basis was not due to a decision in the early part of the war, or perhaps before war was actually declared, that they were not going to have universal conscription of either manpower or wealth. If such a decision was made in the interests of national defense, then I don't think the individuals involved in either class had anything to do with it or were responsible for it or ought to be held responsible for it.

Mr. BRADLEY. Do you have anything more, Mr. Tollefson?
Mr. TOLLEFSON. I have nothing further.

Mr. BRADLEY. Have you anything further you wish to say, Mr. Hayden?

Mr. HAYDEN. Nothing further, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, then, for your interest and the testimony which you have given. Would you say to your organization that we should be very much pleased to have the chairman or some other member of your merchant marine committee appear before us if that is possible? We should like to be informed as quickly as possible, because these hearings are nearly completed.

Mr. HAYDEN. Very well, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, sir.

We shall be glad to have the representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars take the stand and give us his views on this matter.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. WILLIAMSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

Mr. WILLIAMSON. My name is John C. Williamson, assistant legislative director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my purpose here today is to testify in opposition to certain features of the bill H. R. 476. It has long been the pride of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that we have been a watchdog insofar as veterans' benefits are concerned. It has been our traditional policy, therefore, to oppose the extension of veterans' benefits to nonmilitary or quasi-military groups.

We have also felt that such an extension of veterans' benefits would inevitably threaten the whole structure of veterans' benefits.

In World War II the question has been dramatized considerably in view of the fact that unlike nineteenth-century warfare, World War II was fought by not only the armed forces of the United States