SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1947 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee convened at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Willis W. Bradley (chairman), presiding. Present: Messrs. Bradley (chairman), Latham, Maloney, and Havenner. Mr. BRADLEY. Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order in the hope and expectation that we may have other members come in in the near future. During the hearings I have had a great deal of correspondence arrive, much of it with a request to insert it in the record. Of course, it would be totally impracticable to insert all of these numerous letters in the record, so we naturally reserve our right to insert typical letters and to omit others from the record. I have picked out a few typical letters for insertion in addition to those which we have already placed in the record. Without objection I would like to insert them. To show you the general scope of those letters I have picked out, I have here a long letter from Paul E. Loven, of Jersey City, N. J. I have a long letter from Harold G. Dickey, of Peoria, Ill. Another letter of considerable length which is a statement of Otho J. Hicks, executive director of the United Seamen's Service, Inc., and finally a letter from M. K. O'Sullivan of Vienna, Va., in which he suggests certain amendments to the bill in regard to classified and unclassified civil service. I will give these letters to the reporter and ask that they be inserted. (The letters referred to are as follows:) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington 25, D. C., February 26, 1947. Re H. R. 476. Hon. WILLIS W. BRADLEY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Ship Construction and Operation and Maritime Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BRADLEY: Enclosed herewith I hand you a letter dated February 18 which I received from Mr. M. K. O'Sullivan regarding the bill H. R. 476. I am referring this letter to you as chairman of Subcommittee No. 1 for your consideration. Very sincerely yours, FRED BRADLEY, Chairman. 335 VIENNA, VA., February 18, 1947. Hon. FRED BRADLEY, Chairman, Merchant Marine Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BRADLEY: Attached is a paragraph which I respectfully request be incorporated in bill H. R. 476. The importance of having employees with practical merchant-marine experience in various departments of the Government, particularly in those departments directly concerned with problems affecting the United States merchant marine, cannot be overemphasized. The contribution of merchant seamen to the successful promulgation of the war is second to none. Millions of men and women in the armed forces never left the United States, and hundreds of thousands of those sent overseas were detailed to areas extremely remote from combat or danger zones. Every merchant seaman included in the provisions of H. R. 476 were possible victims of the enemy. The percentage of casualties of merchant seamen is far higher than the Army or Navy. Failure to pass this bill will have devastating results on the morale of our present seagoing force and thousands of young men who volunteered for this service during hostilities who are presently living and working ashore. Very sincerely yours, M. K. O'SULLIVAN. PREFERENCE OF EMPLOYMENT In all classified and unclassified civil-service positions, a war-service merchant seaman shall be granted the same preference as is now granted to veterans under the provisions of the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. The Civil Service Commission shall promulgate appropriate rules and regulations for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this section. War service in this section also includes any person who served in the United States merchant marine between April 6, 1917, and July 2, 1921, and received a certificate of honorable discharge from the Sea Training Bureau of the United States Shipping Board or a State schoolship. Mr. ОTHо J. HICKS, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., May 10, 1947. Executive Director, United Seamen's Service, Inc., New York 6, N Y. DEAR MR. HICKS: I have received your letter of recent date, together with a statement which you wish incorporated in the record of the hearings on H. R. 476, through the office of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I have read your letter and statement with interest and shall present them to the subcommittee conducting the hearings. I cannot give you any guaranty that they will be incorporated in the hearings as that will require unanimous consent of the subcommittee present, and as you know, it is not practical to authorize the inclusion of any great number of statements from would-be witnesses in a record of hearings. It is quite likely that there will be a great number of witnesses appearing in person before the committee. Very sincerely, Miss ELIZABETH B. BEDELL, WILLIS W. BRADLEY. UNITED SEAMEN'S SERVICE, INC., Clerk, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MISS BEDELL: I have Congressman Bradley's notice of the public hearing of H.R. 476 to be held in Washington on Monday, May 12. Having just returned from an inspection tour of South American and Caribbean ports, I find it impossible to appear personally at the hearing for United Seamen's Service. I would appreciate it greatly, however, if the attached statement in support of the bill could be read into the record during the hearing. Sincerely yours, OTHо J. HICKS, Executive Director. STATEMENT OF OTHO J. HICKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED SEAMEN'S SERVICE, INC., IN RELATION TO H. R. 476, MAY 12, 1947 As the executive head of an agency which since 1942 has been serving the specific needs of men of the American merchant marine on a world-wide basis, I should like to express our support of H. R. 476. United Seamen's Service was organized at the outset of the war to provide American seamen with adequate and moderately priced housing, lodging, and program activities. In 4 years it provided more than 10,000,000 individual services to individual seamen, including assistance in personal problems and in the operation of rest centers for convalescent seamen most of whom, during that period, were war casualties. With representation from shipping companies, the Government, the public and seamen themselves and their unions, USS operations followed the war shipping lanes and were closely integrated with those of the War Shipping Administration. I believe our agency's broad experience qualifies us to speak with authority on the services rendered by seamen in the war effort and why those with war records deserve to benefit by the provisions of this bill. Our views on the various sections of this bill are as follows: EDUCATION AND TRAINING To a very large extent the heavy wartime increase of personnel in the United States merchant marine was represented in young men eagerly desirous of participating actively in a crucial phase of the war effort. These young men were either under the age for acceptance into the Army or Navy or had been rejected for minor physical disabilities by these services but were fit enough to qualify for the merchant marine. When they entered many of these boys had not yet completed their secondary education. Many of them have continued to sail past the ending of hostilities. At this time, however, when opportunities for steady employment in shipping are diminishing at a constant rate, a sizeable fraction of the present personnel feel a compulsion to return to shoreside employment. They are bound to find this an extremely difficult adjustment because of their incomplete education and lack of specific training for shoreside work. In the intervening years, many of them have contracted family obligations and are at an age when normal adult responsibilities for self-support and for dependents prevent their being able to complete their education or training without financial assistance. The Government has already acknowledged the similar needs of veterans of the armed forces who interrupted their education to serve their country in wartime. In view of the numerous statements of record by military authorities as to the inestimable contribution of men of the merchant marine in transporting war cargoes, similar assistance should now be provided to qualifying seamen to help them complete their education and make an early adjustment to shore employment. HOSPITALIZATION, MEDICAL TREATMENT, AND VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION Seamen partially or totally disabled by reason of their war service badly need the extension of eligibility for free medical and hospital care embodied in this bill. The differences between work in the maritime industry and occupations ashore are so wide that the seaman who is disabled and cannot continue his normal occupation is faced with a particularly difficult problem of work readjustment. The best efforts of trained vocational rehabilitation workers, and the provision of funds for maintenance during such efforts, are indispensable to the success of any program of readjustment. DISABILITY AND DEATH BENEFITS The extremely high death and disability rate of the wartime merchant marine has resulted in many seamen and their families being left without adequate resources for maintenance. Although a seaman's death or disability may have been attributable directly or indirectly to wartime conditions of shipping, insurance benefits were available only if the disability or death resulted from direct enemy action. This excluded from benefits a large number of seamen or their families to whom the Nation has a moral responsibility for support. The dependents of a seaman who lost his life or earning ability "in the line of duty," whether the incident involved being torpedoed by enemy submarines or being washed overboard in a storm, are as deserving and needful as those of a veteran's family in the same circumstances. For the above reasons, the United Seamen's Service is firmly convinced that the enactment of H. R. 476 is necessary for the proper care of war-service seamen and their families and would represent a minimum expression of the Nation's gratitude to the intrepid men of the merchant marine. Re H. R. 476. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Mr. HAROLD G. DICKEY, Peoria, Ill. DEAR MR. DICKEY: Thank you for your letter of March 15 expressing your views on the merchant seamen's war service bill, H. R. 476. This bill is now being studied by our Subcommittee No. 1, of which Hon. Willis W. Bradley is the chairman. I am referring your letter to him so that he may have the benefit of your opinions. Very sincerely yours, FRED BRADLEY, Chairman. PEORIA, ILL, March 15, 1947. Hon. FRED BRADLEY, Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BRADLEY : During the past 10 weeks of this session of Congress I have been waiting with an expectation of some progressive action to be taken in regards to the merchant seamen's war-service bill. However, just last week I was informed by the Honorable Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois that the only action taken on this measure thus far was that taken by your committee by asking "for reports from various executive agencies interested in this particular measure." Sir, the war has been over for a long time as far as we members of the merchant marine are concerned. Thousands of veterans have been enjoying the benefits of their bill of rights for several years; yet ex-merchant seamen are still dependent upon their own abilities if they are to readjust themselves to shore life (not civilian life). Is the problem of the seaman's equity in receiving the benefits of the proposed bill of rights one which should require so much waiting pending on the results of your committee's findings on the reports it is now gathering, or is the progress of this bill being held to a standstill because it is not of as much importance as other bills that Congress is now handling? Just what qualifications do seamen lack that might have distinguished their readjustment eligibility from that of the men of the armed forces? What are the problems involved that are of a questionable nature? Surely, Mr. Bradley, there are no questions more important than those involving the time at which ex-merchant seamen shall enjoy the benfits provided for by the act. During the war merchant seamen and the merchant marine acted on a very fast time schedule; this was done that we might serve well our Nation. Can't such a system be used in serving our seamen? If I would not be prying into a very confidential matter, I would like to ask this question: Just what questions is your committee hoping to answer with the data which it is now collecting? Surely there is no question as to the quality of the work performed by merchant seamen. And according to an article compiled by the Honorable Schuyler O. Bland in the August 12, 1945, copy of the Congressional Record, merchant seamen were not overpaid, even when their pays, less income taxes, were compared with the pays received by members of the armed forces. Sir, make a comparison between the pay the average merchant seaman received while he served and the pay the veteran received while serving and that compensation he is now receiving in additional wages for on-the-job training, educational subsistence, etc. I would certainly be pleased to receive the difference in the amounts as a gift. There are, indeed, many important factors one must consider when comparing the pays received by merchant seamen with the pays received by the men of the armed forces. Of course, I am sure that nothing would be gained by my pointing out these factors to you, a man serving as chairman of a committee which has more than likely made many thorough researches to obtain this very type of material. However, it is apparent that many people in this country believe that the amount of pay received by the members of the armed forces was much smaller than the seamen's pay. Such belief may be justified to a certain extent. However, I hope that our Congressman--the well-trained economist he now appears to be— will consider the merchant-marine pay on the basis of net income or perhaps by the presently common term 'take-home pay.' Surely, Mr. Bradley, when the problem of compensation is examined on the basis of the actual net amount of earnings-and that is the basis on which it should be examined-there will no longer be a problem of overpayment for services at the time services were rendered. As I understand it, the services of the merchant marine were most valuable in our winning World War II. It was with this understanding that I left my comfortable home, my friends, and my educational training at the age of 16 to sail on merchant ships and make a contribution to the work that proud organization was doing. I certainly don't regret my giving that organization two of the best years in any man's life. Nevertheless, I can't say that I have enjoyed the manner in which our country has shown its appreciation for my small contribution of efforts and skills-efforts and skills that were not too important, but still they apparently were needed. At the age of 18 I returned from my short-lived career of seamanship. And to what did I return? I returned to a Nation that was in a very frustrated condition of readjusting itself to the swing of peacetime life. First on the list of these readjustments was that of attending to the needs of our veterans who had served their country in war. But this word veteran did not have at that time the meaning it had when I joined the merchant marine. Now the word veteran seems to mean: Men and women who have served their country (in a manner similar to the procedure merchant seamen followed) while wearing a khaki or green or Navy blue uniform and receiving their pay from the various Government departments or administrations whose official names begin with the letters U. S. (This isn't Webster, of course.) It seems as though the Government has even placed two different and distinct degrees of values on the services rendered by those who fought to defend our democracy. For the first degree value one receives a pin which entitles him to the respect he deserves and an opportunity to make some real progress in life, progress that will benefit both him and his offspring. For the second degree one receives a lapel pin similar to the one worn by the first-degree man, but no one seems to recognize this particular pin. People will give due respect to the wearer of this pin if he tells them what it represents or if the curious people read the pin's tiny wording. Also, the second-degree man has slight chance of getting that opportunity of making some progress in life, too. Of course, with the seconddegree man the procedure is not quite the same as that one the first-degree man enjoys. The second-degree man has a chance that is rather conditional. He must wait until the first-degree men have had their needs satisfied and all other major problems have been given proper attention. |