Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes, sir; that is right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CULKIN. Who handled the legislation on the qualifications of operators? Mr. DIRKSEN. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in the Communications Act of 1934. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; as part of that omnibus bill that came down. Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. RIVERS. Referring to that radio proposition, does not the Navy have quite a bit of concern now about the desirability of eliminating any chance of having subversive operators aboard ship? Mr. DIRNSEN. Yes; that is quite right, and, may I say, without being at liberty to disclose the matter definitely, that one of the admirals in the Navy called me twice this week and expressed his interest in that bill and expressed his interest in the pending bill. Mr. RIVERS. One of them appeared before this committee the other day and said that he would like to have something to say about it, and I believe he is here this morning. Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes. Mr. RIVERS. You mentioned Mr. Furuseth whose memory is perpetuated in the Labor Department, and that Mr. Furuseth desired legislation on this point, and with respect to other provisions of this bill. So, by the same token, I assume the Navy Department is interested. Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Dirksen, do you think section 106 is constitutional? I agree with the language over in section 107, but the fact that a man may disseminate literature that would advocate a change in the form of government, that, of itself, unless he advocated violence, would not be illegal or unlawful, would it? Mr. DIRKSEN. Far be it from me, of course, to digress into a constitutional argument, because it does not prove anything, but in my humble opinion that provision is entirely constitutional, and, may I observe further, in connection with the amendments to terminate the powers in H. R. 1776 by concurrent resolution, I was interested in the United States Daily this week, which carried two pages of opinions of the most brilliant constitutional legal minds in the country, and there was a beautiful divergence and cleavage of opinion between them. So, in my humble capacity, far be it from me to pass on the question of constitutionality. Mr. CULKIN. Well, the gentleman has done his best, of course. Mr. JACKSON. Is it not pretty well settled that Congress cannot limit freedom of speech and that advocating a change in government is unlawful only to the extent that one advocates the overthrow of the Government by force and violence? I think that is pretty well settled. Mr. DIRKSEN. Have you read the whole section? Mr. JACKSON. Yes. Mr. DIRKSEN (reading): SEC. 106. Section 4612 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 46, sec. 713), is amended by adding before the period at the end thereof the following: "; and 'lawful command' includes, among other things, any command prohibiting the dissemination or distribution by any seaman among other seamen of any book, pamphlet, leaflet, or other publication or item of written, printed, or graphic matter which in the opinion of the master is en couraging, or is calculated to encourage, mutinous or rebellious conduct, or disloyalty to the United States or the principles of the Constitution, on the part of the crew or any member thereof. Mr. JACKSON. They may advocate a change in the principles of the Constitution, as long as it is not by force and violence. The CHAIRMAN. The question of interruptions lies largely with you, Mr. Dirksen, while you are making your statement. Mr. DIRKSEN. I have no objection at all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. It is generally the custom, if a man wants to finish his original statement to permit him to do so before he is questioned, but if you have no objection, proceed. Mr. DIRKSEN. It is scarcely necessary for me to say anything about title 2, because it deals with the citizenship of masters, officers, and crews and also limited citizenship, but as far as subsidized vessels are concerned, the matter is covered by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and here it is proposed to tighten the matter up a little bit. One difficulty I find is this: It would be entirely possible for a person to carry on his nefraious and subersive activities almost to the point of destruction and yet not quite be susceptible to apprehension and punishment under the laws of the United States, because as we have already seen, it becomes almost impossible to make a case, to prove that he is definitely a member of such and such an organization. We passed upon the very highly controversial matter relating to Mr. Bridges, of California. I examined in detail the master's report, which was submitted by Dean Landis, who was appointed the special master in that case, and yet it was really amazing among the many things that had been done, that he came to the conclusion that since there was no proof that he was actually affiliated with and a card-carrying member of any organization that might be devoted to subversive and destructive activities, and his finding was. accordingly, that notihng could be done about it. I do not pass upon that finding whatsoever, but it does point out that there is some difficulty, so this section merely goes to tighten up that matter so that it is not necessary for one to be actually a card-carrying member. Mr. BRADLEY. Is it not a fact that the Communist Party in this country is not issuing any more cards to its members? Mr. DIRKSEN. I have not heard of that, Mr. Bradley. Mr. BRADLEY. It has been reported to me several times that they are not, and I just wanted to make that observation. Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes. Let me just delineate for a moment on title 3 which sets up a board for the mediation of maritime labor disputes. As you know, the present Maritime Labor Board expires soon. Its authority under title 10 of the act of 1936 ends on the 23d of June 1941. I for one do not know, nor have I been advised whether that Board will be continued beyond that date. I am not at all sure that it ought to be continued. That is to say, I think it is necessary to have an instrumentality for that purpose, but I do not know whether we ought to have the present Maritime Labor Board. I shall not discuss that matter because that is not pending here at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. Just for your consideration, and subsequent statement on that point, if you desire to make it, there were certain 305951-41-2 recommendations that were made by the Maritime Labor Board, one of which was for a continuation, and in view of the interrelation of the question of the Maritime Labor Board and the Mediation Board, I have set down for consideration at this time those recommendations of the Maritime Labor Board, and I think probably consiedration will be given to their suggestions. Mr. DIRKSEN. It was the Board's own suggestion, as I recall it, that they be continued, or that some other instrumentality be continued. What I had reference to was that I had seen no intimation from the President of the United States, nor from the Congress, that the Board might be continued, but I did see the Board's own recommendation relative to the existence of some continuing instrumentality to handle those disputes. The CHAIRMAN. Consideration will be given to those recommendations. It Mr. DIRKSEN. Title 3 is nothing more than the adaptation of the principles of the Railway Labor Act to Water-borne commerce. is rather singular that, away back in 1920 and 1926, when the Congress created a similar instrumentality to handle controversies involved in land transportation of the country, that water-borne commerce in all its branches and aspects was not included, but it was not. The CHAIRMAN. I think that was due to the fact that that bill was eventually worked out by the railway laborers themselves. Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes; that is probably the case, Mr. Chairman, so that for all these years up to the creation of the Maritime Labor Board there was no instrumentality comparable to the Mediation Board that now handles transportation disputes in the railroad industry. It is a very simple provision. It sets up a three-man board. Let me emphasize that it does not impair the right to strike. I am one of those who believe that the strike is labor's best and strongest economic weapon, and you cannot take it away from them. Blood has been shed, hours and years of toil, sweat, pain, and agony have gone into developing certain instrumentalities that labor claims today, and rightfully claims, too, with which to defend their interests, but this does not interdict or impair the right to strike. Here is a board of three men. This says that before an employer can lock out his employees, before he can change the hours of work, or before he can change the conditions under which they work, it must be submitted to the Board. On the other hand, before the employees can strike, it must be submitted to the Board. It is their duty to submit it to the Board. For 30 days there is a cooling period, during which an effort is made at an adjustment of their differences. If in that period their differences can be adjusted, well and good. In the event they fail to agree neither party is prejudiced in its right, except that there has been a waiting and a cooling-off period for 30 days, and at the end of that time they are in identically the same position that they were before this title began to operate. It has worked very successfully in the transportation field. The Railway Labor Act and the mediation principle have saved hours and days and years, and many years of lost labor, because they can sit around and adjust their grievances. More often than not they adjust them and prevent a controversy that would paralyze the transportation systems of the country. To me that looks like a very fair provision. So, generally speaking, as to titles 1, 2, and 3, I for one do not believe that there is any impairment of a single right of labor or the impairment of the single right of a labor organization. I believe it will be in the interest of the country. and I believe it will be in the interest of labor. I believe it will be in the interest of employees, and it will be in the interest of national defense, in a rather emergent hour when the Navy, the Maritime Commission, and Congress, and all agents or agencies of the Government are continuously distressed about that matter at the present time. Now, concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I add that I have never asked for the approval or disapproval of this act from anyone. I have never called the Navy Department, although the Navy Department called me. I have never asked Mr. Ring, chief of personnel of the Personnel Division of the Maritime Commission, what his opinions were, but I notice in January of 1941 that Mr. Ring in a speech made in St. Louis at that time said that the personnel problems of the Maritime Commission can be easily solved by restoring to masters exclusive authority, so I assumed that Mr. Ring, one of the ranking administrative officers of the United States Maritime Commission, expressed the approbation of the Commission. You read this morning, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the American Legion, a copy of which was sent to me, and since you have already read it into the record it will be unnecessary for me to do so. This morning I found a letter at my office from the Resident Philippine Commissioner to the United States, Mr. J. M. Elizalde, in which he expressed his endorsement, and said that for the first time Filipinos are receiving fair treatment in a bill. (That letter is as follows:) OFFICE OF THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF THE PHILIPPINES Hon EVERETT M. DIRKSEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. DIRKSEN: I have reviewed your H. R. 2662 and note with satisfaction that, for the first time, the Filipino is taken into account in merchant marine legislation, for which attention I thank you. All the existing marine statutes take cognizance of seamen only as either citizens of the United States or aliens; the Filipino, who is neither, finds himself unprotected for the reason that his status is completely ignored. Not being able to qualify as a citizen, he must compete with aliens for the available jobs left open under the law to noncitizens. In competition with aliens he labors under a big disadvantage. Whereas the majority of aliens are eligible to citizenship, the Filipino, except in four instances specified by law, is ineligible. It is only natural that between a noncitizen ineligible to citizenship and one who can aspire to it, an American employer will be prompted by practical reasons, especially in times of international distrust, to prefer the employment of the latter. The result is the creation of an anomalous and unfair state of affairs where a person owing unconditional allegiance to the United States-and obligated by that oath to the defense of the Union-is practically placed by the laws of the land in an inferior position when competing with aliens in his struggle for a living. In the case of passenger vessels in respect of which a construction or operation subsidy has been granted, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 provides that not more than 10 percent of the crew (crew including all employees of the ship) shall be composed of noncitizens. The restriction is further made that any member of the crew not required to be citizens of the United States may be employed only if he is in possession of a valid declaration of intention to become a citizen-which very few Filipinos can make or other evidence of legal admission to the United States for permanent residence. Moreover, their employment is limited to the steward's department. In the case of cargo vessels in respect of which a construction or operating subsidy has been granted, all of the crew must be citizens. Your bill makes provision for all vessels in the United States in respect of which neither a construction nor operating subsidy has been granted under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. Apart from the fact that the allotment given to noncitizens of 25 percent is an improvement over the terms of the existing legislation in the opportunities of Filipino seamen, the principal merit of your bill is that it takes account of the peculiar status of Filipinos and gives them a standing in the law. An effort is made to protest them by providing for their preference and that of a certain class of aliens among the noncitizen group eligible to employment. Today there is involved in this matter of the Filipino seamen a question of principle more than anything else. I have been informed that a good number of the Filipino seamen who were thrown out of work in 1936 by reason of the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act are now being absorbed by the current exigencies of the merchant marine situation. In principle, I cannot accept a situation which, besides ignoring the legal status of the Filipino and violating the underlying philosophy of the political relationship of our countries, is unfair because it accords less opportunities to a group of people owing allegiance to the United States and bound by this allegiance to certain obligations, than to aliens. H. R. 2662 is not a solution to the problem of the Filipino seamen in the United States in principle, but is a distinct improvement over the existing legislation. So, as to make of record my views on H. R. 2662, I would appreciate your insertion of this letter as a part of the pertinent proceedings by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. With the assurances of my high esteem and consideration, and reiterating my thanks for your interest in the welfare of Filipino seamen in the United States, I remain, Respectfully yours. J. M. ELIZALDE, Resident Commissioner of the Philippines to the United States. So there is uniform support of this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I leave it in your hands. You gentlemen are more conversant with maritime problems than I, but I have had some inland experience years ago, and I used to be a marine contractor out on the Illinois River. However, I recognize that is altogether different from ocean traffic, and quite a bit different from the type on the Great Lakes, but I have had occasion to see a little of it, and this bill is motivated by a sincere interest to improve the efficiency, discipline, and security in the marine industry of this country, so as to develop efficiency, discipline, and at the same time to protect the rights of labor. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with this thought: One of the gentlemen representing the Maritime Union who came to my office was Frederick Nelson Meyers, as I recall it. I said, "Mr. Meyers, let me tell you something, and also your delegation; I recognize that the seaman's life is not a happy one. It is a hard life. I know because I have had a bit of marine experience. I used to work my men in bitter cold, and I know what a hard life it is. We cannot do too much for the seamen to improve their condition, to see that they have clean, well-ventilated quarters on vessels, and to see that the pay is adequate and that the food is good. They are entitled to fair, decent, adequate conditions. I think they ought to be covered under some form of social security." The CHAIRMAN. That matter will be considered during this session of Congress. Mr. DIRKSEN. But, Mr. Chairman, despite all of that, there are conditions of loyalty and discipline that very necessarily go along with that. Let us improve their lot as best we can, but also insist |