Mr. JACKSON. You should note, Mr. Chairman, the figures for the seamen are based on 10 months of service. Those are yearly net figures. Mr. BRADLEY. The figures for the merchant seamen are based on 10 months? Mr. JACKSON. Yes. Mr. BRADLEY. Whereas the figures for the Navy man are based on 12 months? Mr. JACKSON. Yes. The reason for that is because the nature of the seaman's work and the necessity of signing on and signing off after a voyage usually required a period of several days before he would obtain another job. Mr. BRADLEY. I believe the members understand that rather well. We have come to the time when the House convenes. Have you any other tables, other than what we have put in, that you would like to have inserted in the record? Mr. SANDERS. Would you turn to page 62 and look at that table, Mr. Chairman, the one at the top of the page of part 1? Mr. BRADLEY. Yes; but do you have any comments on that? Mr. SANDERS. No; I was just glancing through. Mr. BRADLEY. I do not desire to put that in the record because it is not submitted by any official source. It is submitted, rather, by a private group, of which we have no way of determining its accuracy, whereas the other figures are submitted officially by the Maritime Commission. You have no other data to put in, then, data which you wish to insert in the record? Mr. SANDERS. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADLEY. Are there any particular questions, gentlemen? (No response.) Mr. BRADLEY. Gentlemen, this, then, will complete the hearings insofar as the Maritime Commission is concerned. We hope to meet Monday and hear the Federal Security Agency. We should be glad to have any of you gentlemen present who may wish to come. At this point, with the permission of the members, I should like to insert in the record a word of appreciation to the members of the Maritime Commission who have sat so diligently and patiently with us during the past 3 weeks or more and have replied to our numerous and sometimes difficult questions. I know you will appreciate the circumstances under which we are working and that we must get through this. I would like to have the names of the gentlemen inserted in the record. J. V. McCandless, assistant to Commissioner Mellen. B. K. Ogden, Director, Marine insurance. We appreciate your kindliness in helping us with a difficult problem. (Off the record.) Mr. BRADLEY. On the record. Mr. HAVENNER. What is the consensus about condensing this bill? Mr. JACKSON. The suggestion has been made that the bill be considerably condensed to amalgamate the two titles giving dependency and disability benefits and public health benefits for injuries, throwing it all into the United States Employees Compensation Act which pro vides for all of those things, simply putting the active merchant seamen under the United States Employees Compensation Act for whatever benefits that act provides, and then considering the question of education as the next possibility either in form of a separate act or as part of the main bill. Mr. BRADLEY. Have you finished? Mr. JACKSON. I want to say that I think the bill can be considerably cut down if you simply define the type of personnel you want covered and throw them into the United States Employees Compensation Act because most of these people were Government employees, on Government-owned or operated ships. Mr. HAVENNER. Is that opinion shared by the others here? Mr. LEVINE. I think Mr. McCandless got 1112 pages and I got 11 pages. So we were pretty close on that. I quite agree this type of change can go into the bill and you can redraft it down to a very good size. Mr. BRADLEY. Let me be clear on this now. I seem to misunderstand, perhaps. As I understood the representative of the Maritime Commission he would throw the entire thing, the entire physical disability and death question to the Employees Compensation Commission, and as I previously thought I understood Mr. Levine did not want to throw it all into that organization because of certain other things which enter into this bill. You are not thinking of advocating that, are you? Mr. LEVINE. No; I do not think the Maritime Commission necessarily has said they would exclude certain people, but in terms of draftsmanship that takes only a line or two, whether you broaden the category of people entitled to disability benefits or limit it. In terms of actual draftsmanship, regardless of the size of the category, entitled to the benefits, that is, you can knock them out of title 4 and work it into title 5. Mr. HAVENNER. Does anybody here dissent from that idea? Mr. SANDERS. No. I believe as stated before the Maritime Commission does not want to be put in the position that this is their bill. They are here to give you facts and assist the committee and we will do so in every way. They have put in their report, which Mr. McCandless stated the other day would be subject to change as the committee wished and it could be reduced considerably. Mr. BRADLEY. I think we do thoroughly understand that this is not a Maritime Commission bill. I do say that many of our questions have seemed to indicate we assumed it is a Maritime Commission bill because of the very favorable report that the Maritime Commission made on it. It would therefore seem to be sort of underwriting the bill. I appreciate fully, and I think the other members do, too, that this is not a Maritime Commission bill. Anything more? (No response.) Mr. BRADLEY. Gentlemen, the meeting will adjourn until 10 o'clock Monday morning at which time we expect to have the other representatives of the Government here and at which time we should be pleased to have any of you attend who may care to do so. Thank you. (Whereupon, at 11:10 a. m., the meeting of the committee was recessed until 10 a. m., Monday, June 9, 1947.) SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1947 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 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 (chairman), presiding. Present: Messrs. Bradley (chairman), Tollefson, Burke, Allen, Nodar, Havenner. Also present: Mr. Brophy. Mr. BRADLEY. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. We will resume hearings on H. R. 476. We are fortunate and have the pleasure of having Admiral Land, who was the previous Chairman of the Maritime Commission, here with us. We asked him to come particularly so that he might give us such background as he can with regard particularly to the reasons why the merchant marine remained civilian organization during the last war rather than a military organization or naval organization, as it had been in the previous war. Admiral, we do not want to restrict you at all. For our benefit we would like to get as much information from you as you care to give us. You may have as long as you wish. As you are not a politician, I think it is safe to say that to you. STATEMENT OF EMORY S. LAND, FORMER CHAIRMAN, MARITIME COMMISSION Admiral LAND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think I could make this extremely brief by saying the answer to your question in two words "regimentation" and "militarization." The merchant seamen throughout the United States, at least through their union leaders, objected to any militarization or any regimentation of their occupation. Those two words express more than I could express if I talked for a half hour, and they were generally backed one way or another by the administration. The question was seriously debated many times. At one time it appeared that they were going to have at least uniforms for the seagoing men. They were uniformed on the beach but not at sea, as you know. There were objections raised by union leaders; and as we were close to a war, it was decided not to press the matter and let it ride as it was. But those two words are the real answer to your question, and the objections came from the men themselves as expressed through their union leaders. Mr. BRADLEY. I greatly appreciate the comments because the understanding we had gotten was somewhat to the contrary. We had gotten an understanding that the situation which prevailed was kept that way because of President Roosevelt's insistence on it and that the unions had little to do with it. Your feeling seems to be that at least the condition did prevail with the unions. Would you care to enlarge on it? Admiral LAND. No; I think it was a combination. The administration backed the unions, and the unions backed the administration. I don't know whether to put the cart before the horse, or vice versa, but it is as I have stated. It was thoroughly discussed, mostly off the record, to be sure, but those were the primary reasons; and, in my judgment, the administration backed the union leaders or the union leaders backed the administration. I would hesitate to say which was first and which was second. It is my own idea that they synchronized. Mr. BRADLEY. By "the administration" do you mean the Maritime Commission to a certain extent or do you mean the political administration outside of that? We are not asking you to answer any questions which you do not feel free to answer. Admiral LAND. I would answer that saying "the administration outside that." I would not say the Maritime Commission was wholeheartedly for it, but there were two former naval officers on the Maritime Commission, and we might at least at one time have been sympathetic toward that. I am sympathetic toward that idea if we ever get in another war. I have pretty definite convictions, which I might as well put on the record here. I have put it in other places, namely, if we ever do get into another war the Navy should run its own shipbuilding, and the Maritime Commission should run shipbuilding, and no other segment of the Government should do shipbuilding. So far as operation is concerned, the Navy and War Shipping Administration should run the operations entirely, segregating and separating those functions from any other agency of the Government. It is not only wasteful, but it is a duplication of effort to do it otherwise. This was all thrashed out during the last war by the War Production Board, and the decision reached was that 1,000 tons and under might be left with the Army. In my judgment, that was a mistake. But that is a personal opinion. By the same token, it would probably be more efficient from an over-all point of view if the merchant marine came under the control of the Navy in time of war. I am not saying that as a positive belief, but I think it would be more efficient, and there would be less duplication of effort, there would be better discipline, less trouble at sea, ashore, and float, if they came under it as the Coast Guard does. I have never advocated that specifically, but in retrospect I am inclined to think that is a proper way for the United States to conduct any military operations, despite the fact that I am fully convinced that the merchant marine is a civilian organization. It will not be happily considered at the present time, but, looking at it cold-bloodedly and from an over-all efficiency point of view, it seems to me, with the sentiments of the Congress for unification, that is a logical conclusion to reach if we are ever forced, God forbid, into another war. Mr. BRADLEY. Do you recall ever having made on your part any promises of any kind, or near promises, to the men serving in the merchant marine that they would be given veterans' benefits or benefits of that nature after the war? Admiral LAND. I never made any promises of any kind. The only action I took was official and not verbal. It is in writing, and it was sent to this committee. It is, of course, a matter of record. Mr. BRADLEY. Do you know-and this is another question I am not asking you to answer unless you really wish to do so do you know of any of these so-called promises made by the late President Roosevelt to merchant seamen? Admiral LAND. No; I do not. I know of no promises which were made. I know when the letter which I signed and submitted to this committee and to the Congress was sent, I consulted with the White House, and it had not Presidential approval but staff approval of going ahead with the letter. But so far as promises being made by anyone, I know of no such promise at any time. Mr. BRADLEY. Again not wishing to commit you.on a question you may not wish to take a stand on, how do you feel about the question of extension of so-called veterans' rights? I would in this case say they have been limited to what they call civilian-type rights. How do you feel on that, having been Chairman of the Maritime Commission and associated with the merchant marine for many years? Admiral LAND. I feel that the merchant marine during the war did a good job. I feel they are entitled to certain social-security benefits, not those of the armed services, but anything within reason that the Congress will approve to give them a fair break for a duty well performed. Mr. BRADLEY. Are you thinking of those in relation to merely a reward for duty well performed or in the nature of reimbursement or recompense for injury, disease, or death? Admiral LAND. More of the latter than the former, because I do not believe in buying patriotism, though we were accused of doing that during the war with our bonus system. I would rather buy patriotism than buy strikes, and in the merchant marine throughout the war there were no strikes. There has been throughout the ages, particularly as an adaptation of the British system, the merchant seaman has sometimes been known as a war of the Admiralty. We have adapted and adopted certain types of that kind which, in status of various kinds, sometimes include and sometimes exclude. I would like to see that dropped and the merchant mariner put on the same basis as other citizens from a social security point of view. In that respect I would answer your question by saying that except for special and military service assets the merchant mariner is entitled to the other assets, without going specifically into those of the armed services. Mr. BRADLEY. The merchant mariner was to a certain extent under the Employees' Compensation Act and was dropped from that status, I believe, during your administration on the Maritime Commission. Do you have any comments on that or am I wrong in my statement? Admiral LAND. That is pretty far back for me to answer that question intelligently without referring to the records, but there always was a divergence of opinion, even amongst the men and unions, as to |