Now sir, I am sure that you shall consider the above manner in which I have distinguished the veteran's and the merchant seamen's homecoming reception as a rather simple or perhaps even sarcastic description of the actual situation. However, I would say that such a description certainly isn't an exaggeration.

We ex-seamen are concerned with our welfare at the present time and in the years to come.

When I returned to my home town, I immediately applied for my old job. But since I was only working on a part-time basis prior to joining the merchant marine, I didn't receive any satisfaction from my old employer. Many young exseamen have experienced this same problem. Older men with merchant service are also in an undesirable position. With employers now in a position to employ men who are to receive Government assurance of a reasonably good wage, seamen are at a disadvantage. Men who are well paid, even while learning are naturally in a position to stay with a job that others would leave due to lower pays. After receiving a thorough training, the employee will be able to work more efficiently and earn a higher wage or salary. Why shouldn't an employer hire men under this type of arrangement when it is possible. But ex-seamen are not included among those to benefit from this on-the-job training.

I was taking a full course at Bradley University last semester. But this semester I am working full time and attending Bradley part time. Why should I practically discontinue my education? There is the financial aspect that the seamen must consider.

At Bradley University thousands of veterans who would have probably never attended college are now doing so by taking advantage of the educational provisions of the GI bill of rights. There are only four merchant seamen attending Bradley University. However, I could name 10 of my friends who would now be enrolled in college if this bill, H. R. 2346, were only passed.

There is no doubt, Mr. Bradley, but what the educational standards of the world are being raised due to the war and the great need for educated people to serve the various nations of the world in the future. Unquestionably, there shall be a requirement for some type of educational background if one is to progress in this modern world. The veteran is in a position to gain this education, the seaman is not.

I feel quite certain that this bill's passage would provide the Government with an additional means of income instead of being the cause of another expense. The educated people of the Nation have always contributed the most to our Collector of Internal Revenue. If men are given an opportunity to learn how to perform work for someone else or to practice a profession, or to organize a business enterprise, they shall undoubtedly repay in taxes the governmental assistance received. In addition, they will contribute much good to their community's welfare, and they shall be the fathers of children who will be able to serve our country's future needs in an efficient manner.

Mr. Bradley, this bill should not be put aside any longer. It shall, as I understand it, give opportunities which will directly effect more than 150,000 good American men. If these men take advantage of the Merchant Seamen's War Service Act's provision, it will certainly be of benefit to the whole Nation in time to come.

DEAR MR. LOVEN: 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 state

ments 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.

DEAR MISS BEDELL: Kindly accept my enclosed written statement for the record in advance of the public hearing on May 12, 1947, on H. R. 476.

Not being able to afford a personal appearance before the committee, I am submitting this written statement in lieu of a personal statement.

Kindly include me on your list to receive printed hearings when available. Sincerely,

Hon. WILLIS W. BRADLEY,

PAUL E. LOVEN.

JERSEY CITY 7, N. J., May 8, 1947.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Ship Construction and Operation and Maritime Labor, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SIR: This is an earnest plea for your favorable consideration of the merchant-marine bill of rights bill now up for consideration in the House committee (H. R. 476).

I am writing this letter as an interested citizen, a merchant-marine veteran, an armed-force veteran, and a member of the American Legion.

A few hundred thousand of our fine young men answered the call to serve their country by enlisting in the United States maritime service and the United States merchant marine. Back in 1942 when the Nazi submarines were sinking many of our merchant ships right off our Atlantic coast, radio programs, bill boards, circulars, newspaper ads, etc., begged young men to serve in the merchant marine. These advertisements promised the brave lads (many not more than 16 years of age) benefits comparable to those to be received by men of the armed forces on active duty.

Prior to September 1, 1942, the training of young men for the United States merchant marine was under the administration of the United States Coast Guard. In July 1942 President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9198, transferring the functions from the United States Coast Guard to the United States Maritime Service War Shipping Administration effective September 1, 1942. From September 1, 1942, to December 7, 1942, all men joining the United States maritime service, at $50 a month for training to serve in the United States merchant marine, were required to enlist in the United States Naval Reserve (class M1, inactive). This meant that they could be called to active duty by the United States Navy at any moment the Navy desired to do so. December 7, 1942, all enlistments in the armed services were forbidden and men were drafted for naval duty as well as for the Army.

On

In 1944 the GI bill of rights was passed and the men of the merchant marine were not included because of the technicality that they were not on active duty in the armed forces. President Roosevelt gave assurances that these men were deserving of the same privileges and would be included.

During the war these merchant-marine heroes were praised by General Marshall, General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, etc., for the success of large invasion operations. Later after President Roosevelt died and Admiral Land resigned the men of the merchant marine were forgotten men.

Now these former lads of 16 who enlisted from 1941-45 are returning home with their buddies from the Army and Navy fully expecting to be able to go to college under a bill of rights that had been promised them. They are now amazed

to find out that they were not eligible for on-the-job training, reemployment compensation, college training, and were even excluded from being able to buy a farm or a house like other veterans.

Why are these men not given some of the same privileges as their fellow GI's? Didn't they fight on the same side in the same war? Didn't they answer the call to serve where men were needed (and where more than 5,000 were killed)? Didn't they fight against the same evil foe for the same worthy cause?

Why do some of the old guard of the Veterans of Foreign Wars always fight any bill to give these boys what they so justly deserve? They claim that the lads made big salaries and that some got a big bonus. They do not mention that they did not get a dependency allowance, they did not get any income-tax exemptions; they did not get reduced furlough fares, they did not get free postage; they did not get any mustering-out pay; they did not get terminal leave bonds or cash; they did not get any disability pension; they did not get national service life insurance, etc. They do not mention that they fought bravely and never mention the percentage of casualties in the merchant marine.

Now we have a handful of men who claim to represent the views of large organizations fighting to prevent these worthy lads from obtaining an education. If it will make these reactionaries happy the merchant marine GI's will not have the right to job training and to join the 52-20 club, then do not extend them to these merchant-marine veterans. But the least you could do would be to extend the educational benefits to these deserving men. How will it harm some veteran organization if some merchant-marine veterans have the privilege of going to schools and colleges? Will they not become better citizens and help to make a better United States of America? Should these men and their wives and children be punished by being denied some just benefits, merely because of a technicality of not having been considered an armed force? Could these young men help it if they enlisted in the United States Coast Guard and then transferred to the United States merchant marine by Presidential order? Does it make sense to say that they are true veterans entitled to all these privileges for the time they served in the United States Coast Guard, but merchant-marine civilians because they were transferred by Presidential executive order? Were not the salaries similar? Were not the enemy and the risks the same?

How are you going to justify to these young men the many billions of dollars of gifts and loans to the peoples of many other lands, when you deprive them of an education. We must spend billions of dollars helping the Chinese, the Greeks, the French, the Italians, etc., against the spread of communism yet we forget that charity begins at home. Give these young seamen the opportunity to get an education and back the merchant marine bill of rights.

I am writing you this letter because I cannot afford to go to Washington and lobby for the educational part of this bill, as some of the opponents to it do. Being a poor hard-working school teacher veteran with my formal education behind me, I am not seeking any personal benefits. If you think the cause is just, I beg you to do your utmost to see that this legislation is not bottled up in committee, but that it will be presented for a just vote in the House and Senate. Sincerely yours,

PAUL E. LOVEN.

Mr. BRADLEY. There has been considerable discussion on the statement of the Maritime Commission. As I recall it, we have at no place in the record inserted the report of the Maritime Commission as a whole, that is in a unit so that one may be able to read that report. As it is in the record it is in various paragraphs according to the testimony given.

At this point I should like to insert the entire report of the Maritime Commission, exclusive of the amendments offered. Do you agree, Mr. Maloney?

Mr. MALONEY. Yes.

(The following report of the Maritime Commission on H. R. 476 is as follows:)

[No. 31]

REPORT OF MARITIME COMMISSION ON H. R. 476 [MR. PETERSON] UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, Washington, May 12, 1947.

Hon. FRED BRADLEY,

Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. BRADLEY: On February 4, 1947, you requested the views of the United States Maritime Commission on H. R. 476, a bill "to provide aid for the readjustment in civilian life of those persons who rendered wartime service in the United States Merchant Marine, and to provide aid for their families."

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H. R. 476 would provide certain benefits, essentially civilian in nature and limited in extent, to seamen who voluntarily rendered outstanding service to our country during the recent war.

Theirs was a constant and dangerous service, covering every ocean and sea. They took munitions of war through hostile waters to our allies and were in direct contact with the enemy long before our own armed forces were ready for full-fledged battle. Even before our country was directly involved by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a number of our merchant ships were sunk and their crews suffered death and injury in the fulfillment of their duties.

These men faced dangers of every kind, natural and man-made, but "delivered the goods" in every zone of war. Without a powerful American merchant marine, a most necessary auxiliary to the armed forces, the war could not have been fought, much less won.

From an estimated minimum of 55,000 men actively employed in our merchant marine on December 7, 1941, the number grew to approximately 250,000 in August 1945. In all, it is estimated that 400,000 seamen served in the martime labor force between July 1941 and July 1945. Over 250,000 men received training at the training bases of the United States Maritime Service. Their work was considered so necessary that the Selective Service Board exempted seamen from military srevice. Furthermore, the armed forces released large numbers of men from active military duty, for service in the merchant marine, on the ground that they could render more vital aid to our country in that service.

Nearly all merchant seamen who will be affected by this bill saw active service in the war areas, and indeed, the rate of casualties in the first years of the war was higher for the merchant marine than that of the armed forces. Approximately 7,000 seamen were killed or are missing and officially pronounced dead. Around 540,000 war zone (campaign) bars have been awarded to seamen who served in Over 100,000 combat bars have been awarded to seamen

war zones.

who served on vessels directly attacked by the enemy. Approximately 740 of our merchant ships were lost during the war. Some are still being lost as a result of residual war risks such as floating mines and disrupted navigation aids. Of the vessels lost during the war approximately 250 were not armed. The Navy armed guard assigned to man the guns of our merchant ships numbered over 100,000. Of these, approximately 1,500 are dead or missing as the result of enemy attacks on our merchant ships, which caused death and injury to merchant seamen some of whom helped man the guns on the same vessels.

The service of these men has received the heartiest commendation of the Army and Navy. Admiral King said: "Without this support, the Navy could not have accomplished its mission." General Eisenhower said: "They have never failed us yet and in all the struggles yet to come we know they will never be deterred by any danger, hardship, or privation." General MacArthur said: "At our side they have suffered in bloodshed and in death." These words bolstered the morale of this volunteer civilian service and were not considered, at the time, as idle praise. The United States desperately needed the merchant marine then as never before.

The bill would recognize that war service merchant seamen deserve consideration because they had their education interrupted or terminated; that many are in need of hospital and medical treatment not now provided by law; and that others are partially or totally disabled because of their service; and it recognizes that the dependents of those who lost their lives during their maritime wartime service are in urgent need of financial assistance.

The American merchant seaman, who maintained the vital transportation link between our Nation, engaged in the huge productive efforts of the war, and the millions of our men and those of our allies who fought throughout the world, were subject to strict maritime disciplinary measures and severe restrictions on the normal peacetime pursuits of their occupation. They signed shipping articles which obligated them to serve away from their country for as long as 24 months at a stretch. They were subject to military law and controls while abroad, and to court martial for disciplinary infractions by the Army, the Navy, and the Coast Guard. Their employment was not continuous because of the nature of their task, and they were compensated only as long as they were attached to a vessel. They could not live at home or take their leisure daily on shore. They did not have the protection of unemployment insurance. They have no workmen's compensation, group-life insurance, pensions, or retirement plans. Their leaves from service were limited. Shore leave abroad was often prohibited and they were confined to their vessels for long periods of time even while in port.

It is a misconception to consider this bill as one which would grant veterans' benefits to merchant seamen. Basically serving as civilian personnel, these seamen were subject to war hazards, and to enemy action and to military discipline, to an extent distinctive from other civilian personnel, so that the service which merchant seamen rendered during the war might be described as quasi-military. Such rights and benefits as they now have are those primarily established for a peacetime merchant marine. They are inadequate in several respects, to meet the problems, especially of education and training, disability and dependency, arising out of war service.