Mr. McLANE. Well, possibly because it, incidentally, was a more dangerous way of making $50 a week.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Why do you compare it with the shore worker instead of the Navy man who went to sea or the Army man who went to sea? We all appreciate that shore wages were way above wages at sea.

Mr. McLANE. I would say in making that remark I was looking at it purely from a personal viewpoint.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You certainly do not consider we are running this investigation to cover the viewpoints of all merchant seamen, do you?

Mr. McLANE. No, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It is the national viewpoint we want. You also stated there was no difference-or words to this effect, "There is no difficulty in drawing the line as to where pay benefits would stop." Would you elucidate on that a little?

Mr. MCLANE. I pointed out the merchant marine is the fifth member of the Government forces that have been utilized in our past several wars and that each one of the other services, that is, the four major services, have been accorded veterans' benefits. I feel that the fifth member, the merchant marine, has been neglected. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not clear as to the four members; will you repeat them?

Mr. McLANE. The Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. There are really only two. The Marine Corps and the Coast Guard were part of the Navy during the war, is that not so, and always have been?

Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir, that is true. I was just making a more complete break-down.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Make your point clear, then. There are only two other services, then, the Army and the Navy, is that not the situation?

Mr. McLANE. That is true, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You know there are only two; they have been recognized as the fighting forces during the history of the Nation.

You were going to show us a line of demarkation where this could be stopped, after you leave the present line of demarkation which is the fighting forces. I would be very interested to hear that.

Mr. MCLANE. I believe Admiral Mahan in his classic on naval strategy pointed out that a first-class navy is a first-class navy because it has a first-class merchant marine.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested here in the strategy of Admiral Mahan nor do I have time to go into it. I have asked a question and it does not require such a discussion. The question is, wherein would you suggest or believe we could draw the line in veterans' benefits if we should leave the armed forces?

Mr. McLANE. Well, my point there was that the merchant marine should be simply granted the provisions of this current bill we are discussing, 476, and that we should be the last group to be considered

as veterans.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You have given me no answer to my my question. Do you know the answer or have you any suggestion for the answer as to where you could draw the line?

Mr. MCLANE. Would you kindly explain, Mr. Chairman, exactly what you mean by drawing the line?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes. What I mean is that heretofore in general veterans—and these are veterans' benefits, there is no ques tion about that, whatever you want to call them-have been limited to two classes of people, those who have worn the uniform or have drawn the pay of one of the recognized armed forces, combatant forces of the United States, the Army, or the Navy. Whether right or wrong that has been the general classification.

When we once abandon that classification and get into the civilian forces, which the merchant marine is and was by its own choice, where then do we stop in drawing the line? Do we take the ships at sea! Do we take the training stations ashore? Do we then go into the ar senals overseas? They are all civilians. They were in just as much danger, lots of them.

Where do we draw the line? That is the issue. Already we have requests in numbers from the overseas civilian agencies during the war. such as the Red Cross, the YMCA and other agencies, that they should all be included in this same legislation. We are asking for as sistance if you can give it to us.

Mr. MCLANE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that another witness is prepared to answer that particular question.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You are not prepared to answer it, very well.

You spoke of there being no-I am not exactly clear what you meant-no able seamen on the ships on which you served. You stated that in reply to a question. Did you mean to say there were no naval gun crews on those ships or what was the implication of that reply? Mr. McLANE. I don't quite understand the question.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In reply to a question as to the com parative wages between naval personnel and civilians on the ships on which you served, you replied, as I recall, that you didn't know of any able seamen in the Navy on board those ships. I am simply trying to find out whether you meant that the gun crews were not what would call able seamen or whether there were no naval gun crews aboard ship.

you

Mr. MCLANE. I believe that was at the part of my testimony, Mr Chairman

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested in what part it is, am asking a simple question. You can answer questions.

Mr. McLANE. I was referring to service in the United States Mari time Service, not in the merchant marine.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested in that. I ask you questions and you don't answer them. The question I asked is very clear. Were you referring to the fact that you did not consider the me on gun-crew duty to be able seamen or were you indicating there were no gun crews aboard the ship? That question doesn't require a dic tionary in order to understand it.

Mr. McLANE. No, Mr. Chairman; no implication was meant such as that.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Answer the question. Even that hasn't answered the question. Don't you want to answer it?

Mr. McLANE. I believe that one of the other witnesses will answer that.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not asking one of the other witnesses. You made a statement; aren't you willing to answer a question about your own statement or do you think you can come here and just bluff us and pull the wool over our eyes about everything? That is apparently what you think you are doing. You are doing this hearing more harm in trying to avoid questions than three or four poor witnesses could do.

Mr. McLANE. I am not trying to do anything of the kind, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You are not answering questions. Answer the question I asked you?

Mr. McLANE. I don't understand the question.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I have asked it three times, at least. When you said there were no able seamen of the Navy on board the transport on which you served, I want to know whether you meant that there was no naval gun crew on board that ship or whether you meant that the personnel of that gun crew could not be classed as able seamen?

Mr. McLANE. I thought of them only as gunners, not essentially

as seamen.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is the answer to the question. Mr. McLANE. That was their job aboard ship.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is the answer to the question. You have brought out the fact that the men of the merchant service lid not go into the Navy at the beginning of the war, which is entirely rue. Will you say why the merchant service was not absorbed into he Navy, insofar as you know or believe?

Mr. McLANE. As far as I know it was because the unions didn't want it, the seamen's unions.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Were you a member of a union?
Mr. McLANE. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. At no time while you were on board ship vere you a member of a union?

Mr. MCLANE. At no time.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Why did you go into the merchant servce instead of the Navy?

Mr. MCLANE. At first I tried to enlist in the United States Navy ind one of the officers at 30 Church Street advised me to go into the nerchant marine because I had prior merchant marine experience; e suggested that I try it.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You were aware, were you not, that merchant seamen are considered as civilians?

Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir; I was.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You were aware, were you not, that enefits för military personnel had never been extended to merchant eamen?

Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. And you had no reason to expect hat they would be, did you?

Mr. McLANE. I had no reason.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Then apparently this drive for the extension of benefits has come up as an afterthought. What has brought this about?

Mr. MCLANE. I had only one thought, Mr. Chairman, at the time. and that was to serve my country in the best way that I possibly could. The naval officer gave me the right course to follow and I took it.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. And you feel that having served your country in the war it is your duty now to try to cash in on the service! Mr. MCLANE. Not personally. I am thinking of those who need the benefits more than I do. I have to pay my own medical expenses which I can do because I have job ashore and I can quite well take care of myself, but many of these men who were professional seamen before the war and those who were, well, not inducted but who volunteered to serve for the merchant marine, need these benefits. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Aren't there just as many people who were not in the services at all who need these benefits?

Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir; I guess there must be a considerable num ber of them.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In speaking of pay on an annual basis-and I don't make a fetish out of pay or out of the pay ques tion, but I simply like to bring the acts out-you gave some figures of annual pay, did you not?

Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir, I quoted from Colonel Cory's testimony in parts 1 and 2 of the previous hearings before the Seventy-ninth Congress.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you know how many months of active service was included in that year's pay and how many months there might have been between voyages?

Mr. MCLANE. As I recall the testimony of Colonel Cory, he took a representative group of six different types of seamen and averaged them all together.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Again I am asking a question and you are not answering it. I said do you know how many months of active service were included and how many months people were laid off be tween voyages?

Mr. McLANE. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested in discussions. You do not know?

Mr. McLANE. No, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That covers my questions. Have you any question, Mr. Tollefson?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman, I have one question for my own information. Were there gun crews on all the merchant vessels that went into the danger zones?

Mr. McLANE. I understand that during the early part of the war merchant vessels did not have guns or gun crews. I was aboard a small Army boat which had neither a gun nor a gun crew to man it at the start of the war.

I believe later on they were all equipped with guns and gun crews Mr. TOLLEFSON. These guns were manned by Navy personnel in all cases, were they not?

Mr. McLANE. In the Army Transport Service during the early part of the war they were manned by the Army. Later on the Navy took over the gun crew.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. The gun crew always was composed of either Army personnel or Navy personnel, I mean, one or the other?

Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir. If I may I would like to bring out a point which is not generally recognized. Merchant seamen were schooled as gunners in our maritime schools and in many cases aboard ship they served as reserve gun crews. In other words, they were trained to replace the Navy gunners who might be shot down in action. According to the records of the War Shipping Administration there have been quite a few instances of that.

I know of several that happened in the Pacific, so to a great extent the merchant marine followed out its historical pattern of, well, we will say, theoretically being a part of the Nation's fighting forces, not actually or officially, but in that respect.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I have no further questions.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Would not the fact that they did man guns be a simple question of saving their own lives and ship and would it not occur anywhere in any civilian organization?

Mr. MCLANE. Certainly, to some extent, that would be exactly the thought that might run in their minds.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Each of us would do the same thing. Mr. McLANE. Certainly.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Mr. Maloney, do you have any questions?

Mr. MALONEY. When did you join the merchant marine?

Mr. McLANE. In 1942, in May.

Mr. MALONEY. Was your experience in the merchant marine a typical experience, that is, would you say yours was the general run of experience in the merchant marine?

Mr. McLANE. That would be a very difficult question to answer. Mr. MALONEY. And you continued in the merchant marine until what date?

Mr. McLANE. I continued on active duty with the merchant marine until I went to officers' training school in February 1943, at which time I became a part of the United States Maritime Service and continued until I was discharged in 1945.

Mr. MALONEY. So that you were actually in service as an officerwhat was your position when you first went in?

Mr. McLANE. Ordinary seaman.

Mr. MALONEY. And you continued being an ordinary seaman from May of 1942 until February 1943, practically 10 months?

Mr. McLANE. I first became an ordinary seaman and then later on an ablebodied seaman, during that period of 9 months, then I went to officers' training school and got my license as a deck officer.

Mr. MALONEY. How much time during those 10 months did you lay off between voyages?

Mr. MCLANE. I would say not more than a week.

Mr. MALONEY. Just 1 week?

Mr. MCLANE. Just 1 week, sir.

Mr. MALONEY. In that time what were your earnings?