struggled for a voice in society and government. Through their democratic unions they have, for the first time, won recognition as a responsible section of American industry and society. When attempts are made by government to black-out democracy, the first attack is concentrated on the trade-unions, and chaos in an extremely important section of American industry is not too high a price for the achievement of that aim.

For this reason we cannot express too strongly our unalterable opposition to the Dirksen bill, or any vicious amendments or substitutes, and our determination to preserve the democracy which we have fought for and won.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have to adjourn now and answer a quorum call of the House. If there are no further questions at this time, the committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the committee adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 6, 1941, at 10 a. m.)

MERCHANT SEAMAN

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1941

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 p. m., pursuant to adjournment of yesterday, for further consideration of H. R. 2662, Hon. Schuyler O. Bland, chairman, presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We are still under the pressure of the appropriation bill which is being considered in the House. It is still being read under the 5-minute rule, and it will not be necessary to adjourn at 12 o'clock, but Members want to be there when the bill is under consideration. Mr. Curran, will you take the stand?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CURRAN, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen?

Mr. BRADLEY. I have a few questions I would like to ask Mr. Curran, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understand you have to go before the Rules Committee this morning, Mr. Bradley.

Mr. BRADLEY. First of all, I want to say, Mr. Curran, that I share much of your fear about this legislation. I am not in favor of the legislation, I might say, in its present form, but, likewise, I want to repeat what I said yesterday in corroboration of the suggestion of Mr. Culkin and Mr. Oliver, that I think that this thing should be aired out, as far as we can air it. I want to take this occasion to compliment you on the splendid study you and your group have made of this subject as shown by the presentation made here yesterday, and I think it is one that is very valuable to this committee. I am glad that you found it possible to be with us today to answer a few questions, because, of course, as you appreciate, unless we have a chance to check up on some of these things, the testimony is not only not of much value to us, but, at the same time, I understand under the rules of the House it could be rejected entirely if you refuse to answer questions, which I am sure you do not want to do. The CHAIRMAN. I might say that, in view of the colloquy which occurred yesterday, Mr. Curran was here afterward and said that he had meant no reflection upon the committee whatsoever; and, insofar as the brief is concerned, he transferred to me the responsibility of putting it in or eliminating any portions of it, that he would bow to my judgment

189

305951-41- -13

as to the brief. On casual examination, it looks to me as if it is all relevant, but I have not had the opportunity to go over it carefully. I had to turn it over to the stenographer last night. I think it is fair to make that statement at this time.

Mr. BRADLEY. I think the whole committee feels that way, and that the committee wants to be fair. The only point is we have other duties that we have to take care of.

Mr. Curran, I have been interested for many years in the question of safety on land and sea in all kinds of industries, and I am just curious to know how your group promotes safety. I mean, do you, in your publication, the Pilot, devote any part of it to safety suggestions for the men, and so forth? The reason I have asked that question is this: I have always been convinced, in my own mind, that the best way to promote safety is to instill in the mind of each individual the safety elements. I think you would agree on that?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir; we do.

Mr. BRADLEY. I just wondered how you went about educating your men and helping them to insure themselves and their fellow men against the happening of accidents.

Mr. CURRAN. We have written into the contracts guaranties of safety, and we have also carried on campaigns among our seamen. Besides that, we set up a committee which is headed by one of our associate editors on the paper, to work with the operators and the insurance companies to make a survey or a study of the ships for recommendations as to the proper carrying on of a safety campaign. with the operators, the insurance companies, and the unions, because the operators had disagreed with our methods of going about promoting safety. They claimed it was more or less in the form of criticisms which were unjustified. So, we established this committee and they worked with the operators and with the insurance companies. We now have a comprehensive survey, and there are representatives aboard to promote safety on ships. That is how far we have gone. Mr. BRADLEY. The reason that I asked that question is that I do not know how far some lines go in that respect, but I do know that the line with which I was associated leaned over backward in order to promote safety. When we wanted an appropriation for anything and could set it up on a safety basis we would get the appropriation right now. Another thing that prompted that inquiry, Mr. Curran, is because I had the pleasure of attending several of your meetings aboard ship, and I do not recall that I ever heard any safety suggestions made at those meetings, and I just wondered whether or not that was your practice to promote that among your men.

.

Mr. CURRAN. That is our practice, but I might say that in a meeting among seamen aboard ship, you might not find them discussing broad questions of safety. In most cases, seamen are like other people, unless it affects that group there directly, they are not too much interested in the broad general program. That is why you might not have heard them show interest in other than small problems in which they were directly interested on that vessel. It might have been everything else except safety. After all, as to most men in the country, safety is the last thing they think of until they are up against an accident. Mr. BRADLEY. It should be one of the first things they think about. Mr. CURRAN. Yes; it should be one of the first things they think about, I agree.

Mr. BRADLEY. As I recall your testimony yesterday, you criticized somewhat this question of the 30-day-cooling-off period, so-called, and I believe you cited several authorities in support of your contention that that provision was not desirable. I noticed just recently Mr. Knudsen, head of the defense program, recommended some 30-daycooling-off period in industry. I just wondered if you wanted to comment on that, Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN. I did not read it very closely, but I would be inclined to disagree with the suggestion made by Mr. Knudsen, on general principles, because of the relationship of industry to labor, and I do not believe I would be able to go along with the suggestion by Mr. Knudsen. I would rather hear a suggestion coming from labor representatives. If they had a suggestion along those lines I believe they would have made it.

Mr. BRADLEY. Do you know if Mr. Hillman has made such a recommendation?

Mr. CURRAN. No, sir: I do not.

Mr. BRADLEY. I do not know myself.

I think your statement yesterday was, perhaps, a little biased in criticism of operators, by stating that during that 30-day period, as I understood you, you said it would permit them to get strikebreaking crews ready, and so forth, and then you immediately followed that by saying that when you are about to renew a contract you notify the operators ahead of time. I know that they could use that same time in getting strikebreaking crews ready if they were so minded.

Mr. CURRAN. Of course, they probably would be able to do it. What I meant in that connection was that our contracts carry a clause in them providing that the agreements will run from year to year unless either party notifies the other 30 days in advance that it wishes to negotiate for a different contract.

Mr. BRADLEY. Then you have, in effect, already set up the machinery for a 30-day period.

Mr. CURRAN. But that is not exactly a cooling-off period. It is a 30-day period, and that is why we make the statement that we do not believe we need legislation requiring a 30-day period, because all of the unions follow that practice of notifying the companies and they have to go through the usual procedure of arranging negotiations, and in most cases they go on for a month, and in some case we have negotiated for 2 or 3 months at a time with everything moving along smoothly beyond the expiration date, which has been extended from time to time.

Mr. BRADLEY. My thought in that connection is this, and I think I share the view of most of my colleagues, that none of us want to put legislation on the books that is unnecessary, but at the same time, since you are already following a 30-day program, I do not think that there is any real objection to writing it into legislation, as long as it does not hamper you in any way, and you are already following that practice.

Mr. CURRAN. Well, that would hamper us, naturally. The 30-day period would not apply in the same way as the 30-day period which we now carry. In the case of legislation, as far as I know, following the line of the Railway Mediation Act, the 30-day cooling-off period would be a notification period, notifying the proper local authorities